The Problem: “Animal Advocates” Who Promote Animal Exploitation

[Note: Click to enlarge images.]

Mercy for Animals, an animal welfare organization, claims that “The Problem” is “Animals suffering miserably on factory farms.”

ScreenHunter_1079 Sep. 16 05.31


The problem is identifying the problem as “factory farms” and not animal use or exploitation–wherever it occurs and however supposedly “humane” or “compassionate” or “merciful” it is.

Misidentifying the problem has absurd and speciesist consequences, such as declaring the McDonald’s “cage-free” egg announcement as a “victory” and identifying this:


and this


as “Progress!” and as representing “meaningful changes.”

ScreenHunter_1080 Sep. 16 05.42

McDonald’s sells the suffering and death of animals.

Groups like the Humane Society of the United States and Mercy for Animals act as partners with McDonald’s in selling that suffering and death.

McDonald’s gets “animal advocates” to promote them and their products.

In return, McDonald’s gives these “animal advocates” meaningless “victories” to use in fundraising.

HSUS declares the McDonald’s “cage-free” egg announcement as a “watershed moment.”

MFA “applaud[s] McDonald’s for its commitment to phasing out cruel cages in its North American egg supply chain” and calls McDonald’s “praiseworthy.”

That statement is breathtaking.

Here’s a screenshot of the MFA statement in case you simply cannot believe that “animal advocates” would “applaud” animal exploitation.

ScreenHunter_1082 Sep. 16 08.04

Notice that, in addition to “applaud[ing]” the McDonald’s “cage-free” egg announcement, MFA tells its supporters to ask McDonald’s to continue it’s “praiseworthy progress by adopting meaningful standards for chickens killed for Chicken McNuggets.”

And that’s the problem.

Supporting these groups is supporting animal exploitation just as much as consuming a McDonald’s animal product is.

If animals matter morally, then we are obligated morally to embrace and promote veganism as a moral imperative and we are equally obligated to oppose the speciesist idea that imposing suffering and death on animals can ever be “praiseworthy.”


If you are not vegan, please go vegan. Veganism is about nonviolence. First and foremost, it’s about nonviolence to other sentient beings. But it’s also about nonviolence to the earth and nonviolence to yourself.

If animals matter morally, veganism is not an option — it is a necessity. Anything that claims to be an animal rights movement must make clear that veganism is a moral imperative.

The World is Vegan! If you want it.

Learn more about veganism at

Gary L. Francione
Board of Governors Distinguished Professor, Rutgers University

©2015 Gary L. Francione

A Movement That Moves Backward

When I wrote “Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement” in 1996, I argued that the animal rights movement was becoming a “new welfarist” movement. That is, the movement claimed to embrace animal rights and abolition but it promoted the idea of using traditional welfarist reform to get to abolition. I argued that new welfarism was unsound both as a moral and practical matter.

It is now clear that the “movement” rejects abolition and maintains, as did the classical welfarists of the 19th and early- to mid-20th century, that animal use is not itself morally objectionable and that we can use and kill animals as long as we do so “compassionately.”

So the “movement” today is not even new welfarist; it is not taking the position that animal exploitation–however “humane”–is itself morally wrong. The “movement” has rejected veganism as a moral baseline. The only difference between now, and, say, the “movement” in 1940 is that in 1940, there were few, if any, people making a living from being “animal activists.” Now, there are thousands making a living off the back of animal suffering and death as they peddle the insidious notion of “happy” or “compassionate” exploitation.

It’s going backward.


If you are not vegan, please go vegan. Veganism is about nonviolence. First and foremost, it’s about nonviolence to other sentient beings. But it’s also about nonviolence to the earth and nonviolence to yourself.

If animals matter morally, veganism is not an option — it is a necessity. Anything that claims to be an animal rights movement must make clear that veganism is a moral imperative.

The World is Vegan! If you want it.

Learn more about veganism at

Gary L. Francione
Board of Governors Distinguished Professor, Rutgers University

©2015 Gary L. Francione

McDonald’s “Cage-Free” Eggs, Peter McSinger and the McAnimal Movement

In 2012, the European Union “ban” on conventional battery cages for laying hens came into effect. I wrote a blog post and discussed how, even though this supposed “ban” was not a ban on battery cages at all and required only that producers use “enriched” cages for laying hens, and even though conservative welfarists acknowledged that “enriched” cages “fail to overcome” the “severe welfare problems” of conventional cages, Peter Singer, so-called “Father of the Animal Rights Movement,” declared, in a CNN article entitled, Singer: Europe’s Ethical Eggs, that we should

celebrate a major advance in animal welfare, and, therefore, for Europe, a step towards becoming a more civilized and humane society.

Well, if Singer was happy about the 2012 EU “ban,” he’s overjoyed now that McDonald’s has announced on Tuesday, September 8, that it hopes to replace all the eggs it uses with “cage-free” eggs in ten years. In his essay, McDonald’s Rattles the Hen Cage, Singer states:

On Tuesday came what might be the biggest victory yet: McDonald’s announced that it will stop using eggs from caged hens in the U.S. and Canada.

“Biggest victory yet”?



is the “biggest victory yet”?

And Singer tells us that it took forty years to get to this “victory.” Actually, it’s going to take fifty, Peter. You forgot to add the additional ten years of the phase-in.

It is breathtaking that Singer would declare this to be any sort of “victory.” But Singer is not only a consistent cheerleader for the happy exploitation movement: he founded that movement in 2005 when he sent a public letter–endorsed by just about all of the large animal groups–to Whole Foods CEO John Mackey, expressing “appreciation and support” for the “pioneering” Whole Foods happy exploitation program:


When he was asked about the claim that his 2005 letter was an “endorsement for Whole Foods to apply the word compassion to the killing of animals and the packaging of their bodies,” Singer replied:

I think it is that. I don’t deny that. Obviously they’re killing animals and packaging their bodies. There might be some people who say, ‘You can’t be compassionate if you end up killing the animals.’ I just think that’s wrong. . . .

I think as long as the standards really are compassionate ones, that do as much as they can to give the animals decent lives before they’re killed, I don’t have a problem with it.

Sorry, folks, but anyone who claims fatherhood of the “animal rights movement” and says such a thing needs to have a DNA test because there’s a very doubtful paternity claim being advanced.

Ever since 2005, it’s been a constant race to the bottom as all of the large groups relentlessly promote the speciesist idea that animal use is just fine as long as treatment is “compassionate.” And, in this chilling recording from 2006, Mackey discusses how groups like HSUS, PETA, Viva!USA, and Farm Sanctuary served as “stakeholders” and participated in discussions–species by species–to decide what standards of happy exploitation Whole Foods should adopt for the program referred to in Singer’s letter. We find that absolutely breathtaking.

Now it’s no news that Singer does not have a particularly high regard for chickens:

You could say it’s wrong to kill a being whenever a being is sentient or conscious. Then you would have to say it’s just as wrong to kill a chicken or mouse as it is to kill you or me. I can’t accept that idea. It may be just as wrong, but millions of chickens are killed every day. I can’t think of that as a tragedy on the same scale as millions of humans being killed. What is different about humans? Humans are forward-looking beings, and they have hopes and desires for the future. That seems a plausible answer to the question of why it’s so tragic when humans die.

And it’s also no news that Singer explicitly rejects veganism as a moral baseline, denigrating consistent veganism as “fanatical” and as a matter of being “personally pure.” He talks about the “luxury” of eating animal products and calls himself a “flexible vegan,” claiming that:

there’s a little bit of room for indulgence in all of our lives. I know some people who are vegan in their homes but if they’re going out to a fancy restaurant, they allow themselves the luxury of not being vegan that evening. I don’t see anything really wrong with that. . . .

I’ve been a vegetarian since 1971. I’ve gradually become increasingly vegan. I am largely vegan but I’m a flexible vegan. I don’t go to the supermarket and buy non-vegan stuff for myself. But when I’m traveling or going to other people’s places I will be quite happy to eat vegetarian rather than vegan.

So Singer has no problem with eating eggs and other animal products. And in another ten years, he will be able to stop in at McDonald’s and enjoy one of their “cage-free” egg products with “victory” in every delicious bite.


But surely, even he must see that what McDonald’s is doing has nothing to do with animal ethics. It has to do with corporate profitability. McDonald’s is experiencing falling market share. Customers are demanding that McDonald’s serve breakfast foods all day long. And analysts see the “cage-free” announcement as allowing McDonald’s to do an all-day breakfast menu for which it can charge higher prices because of the “better” eggs that McDonald’s will phase in over the next decade.

From a business point of view, the move by McDonald’s is brilliant. They not only get to increase profits, but they get the “animal movement”–from Father Singer to reactionary welfarist groups such as the Humane Society of the United States and Mercy for Animals–to provide free advertising and tons and tons of praise. Indeed, these so-called “animal advocates” are declaring this to be a “watershed moment.” McDonald’s actually has these “animal advocates” reassuring the public that it’s just fine for people to continue to consume animals.

It’s also great for the animal groups, who are, as we write, undoubtedly raising tons of cash as they join Singer in declaring “victory” and as they all claim credit.

But what about the birds?

What about the birds who will still be confined in massive sheds with no room to move?

What about the birds, who will still be debeaked and tortured in other ways, from their birth to their deaths in the hideous abattoirs that slaughter chickens?

What about the male chicks, who will still be killed at birth in the hatcheries?

All of this will continue, but with the “animal movement” providing its stamp of approval.

Unfortunately, the birds are just tools to both the institutional exploiters, such as McDonald’s, and to the “animal advocates,” who are in every way partners with those institutional exploiters.

Singer reminds us that it took forty years–actually fifty with the additional ten years–to get to this “victory.”

Fifty years to get from a situation of torture to a situation of continued torture with the primary difference being that “animal advocates” are now praising that torture. So what’s next?

Another forty or fifty years to get a bit more space in the “cage-free” barn?

And then what? Another few decades of campaigning to get the hens a bit of outdoor space?

It goes on and on and on and on. It never ends. Just imagine all the opportunities for fundraising. That’s the beauty of welfarist reform campaigns. They make for literally unlimited campaigning opportunities. And every insignificant change results in “animal advocates” declaring “victory”–and asking you for more money.

ScreenHunter_925 May. 16 14.42

The “anything is a victory” approach is a great model for the thousands of “animal advocates” who make a living off the suffering of animals as they peddle happy exploitation. It’s great for Singer, who can pretend that he’s doing something other than putting a purported intellectual gloss on this insidious betrayal of animals. It’s great for the public, which is told by “animal advocates” that they can still care about animals and be “compassionate” as they shovel the products of suffering, death, and injustice into their mouths. And it’s certainly great for McDonald’s.

It’s a true win-win-win-win. Only the animals lose.

We do, however, agree that this is a “watershed moment”: the “animal movement” has redefined “activism” as making greater profits for McDonald’s, and has succeeded in associating McDonald’s–one of the most heinous exploiters of nonhumans, humans, and the earth–as a proud member of the “animal movement.”

At the level of the large groups and their Father, it’s a McAnimal Movement now.


If you are not vegan, please go vegan. Veganism is about nonviolence. First and foremost, it’s about nonviolence to other sentient beings. But it’s also about nonviolence to the earth and nonviolence to yourself.

If animals matter morally, veganism is not an option — it is a necessity. Anything that claims to be an animal rights movement must make clear that veganism is a moral imperative.

The World is Vegan! If you want it.

Learn more about veganism at

Gary L. Francione
Board of Governors Distinguished Professor, Rutgers University

Anna Charlton
Adjunct Professor of Law, Rutgers University

©2015 Gary L. Francione & Anna Charlton

Direct Action Everywhere (DxE): Vegan Advocacy is “Harmful to the Animal Rights Movement”

The Modern Animal Movement Rejects Veganism as a Moral Baseline

The modern animal movement, which promotes welfare reform and single-issue campaigns, explicitly and uniformly rejects veganism as a moral baseline.

There is not a single one of the large “animal advocacy” groups that promotes veganism as a moral imperative.

All of the large groups sideline veganism as just another way of reducing suffering–along with vegetarianism, Meatless Monday, less meat, crate-free pork, cage-free eggs, etc.

Peter Singer, so-called “Father of the Animal Rights Movement” calls being a consistent vegan “fanatical” and relentlessly promotes “happy” exploitation. PETA’s Ingrid Newkirk, when asked about promoting principled veganism, said: “Screw the principle”.

PETA, Farm Sanctuary, Father Singer and Sea Shepherd all denigrate consistent veganism as some sort of “personal purity.”

Many “animal advocates” claim that, since we cannot eliminate all harm to animals–animals will be killed in the cultivation of crops–and we cannot avoid all contact with animal products–there are animal by-products in road surfaces, bicycle tires, and plastics, we should not promote veganism as a moral imperative. For example, Bruce Friedrich of Farm Sanctuary tells us that consistency is not required because we can’t be perfect anyway:

• Personal Purity vs. Effective Advocacy

The number one thing that we do wrong—and I am speaking from many years of doing this myself—is that we place personal purity ahead of being as effective as possible for animals. We lose sight of the fact that veganism is not an end in and of itself but rather a means of ending cruelty to animals. Being vegan is not about being perfect and causing no cruelty at all—it’s about decreasing suffering as effectively as possible.

We all know this, but it bears repeating: At some level, everything we consume harms some animals. Every non-organic thing we eat involves pesticides that kill birds and other small animals. Organic foods use animal fertilizer. Harvesting vegan foods kills and displaces animals. Bike tires and even “vegan” shoes contain some small amount of animal product. We could all go out into the woods and live on nuts and berries as “level 10 vegans,” but ultimately, that would be far less effective than living where we could influence others to adopt a vegan diet as well.

Animals don’t need your purity, or else it would make sense to go live in a cabin in the woods, causing as little harm as possible. What the animals need is your advocacy—and they need for it to be as effective and influential as possible. Ultimately, veganism can’t just be about us, or it will become just one more narcissistic cultural fad. Veganism must be about helping animals.

This is, of course, like saying that our actions may have an indirect and unintended negative effects on humans so we don’t need to be consistent about not committing murder, rape, or any other action that violates the fundamental rights of humans. No one would ever say that in the human context. But in the nonhuman context, that’s what some “animal advocates” claim.

And that’s deeply speciesist.

But now, the new welfarists are taking it one step further away from veganism as a moral imperative, which I had previously thought was not possible.

And Now Comes DxE

Direct Action Everywhere (DxE) (why isn’t it “DAE” or “DaE”?) is a group that claims to be “radical” but claims that vegan advocacy is not “activism” and that vegan advocacy is “harmful” to the animals.

In his essay, “Boycott Veganism, DxE founder, Wayne Hsiung, claims:

the concept of veganism is harmful to the animal rights movement. And if you are serious about working for animal liberation, the first thing you should boycott is neither meat nor dairy nor eggs. The first thing you should boycott. . . is veganism.

Harmful? Vegan advocacy is harmful?

Here’s a screenshot of this quote in case you think I’m kidding:

ScreenHunter_1053 Sep. 03 01.33

(Click to enlarge.)

Hsiung goes on to explain that he’s not saying it’s okay to eat animals but only that we have to do more than be vegan if we want to do right by the animals. But even though we should be more than vegan, we should not advocate veganism. In fact, we should reject vegan advocacy as “harmful“. Hsiung does not see vegan advocacy as “activism.”

This makes no sense.

No one will get any argument out of me about veganism being necessary but not sufficient for the recognition of animal rights. I have, since Hsiung was at least in junior high, been clear that going vegan is the very least that we can do for animals and that we should do more. But going vegan is the very first thing we should do once we recognize and accept that animals matter morally. I have also made clear that veganism is necessary but not sufficient if we want to live a nonviolent life.

To say, as Hsiung says, that veganism is necessary but not sufficient for animal rights and nonviolence but that promoting veganism is “harmful” because veganism is not “activism” is beyond absurd.

Let’s take a closer look at the DxE position.

Veganism and Vegan Advocacy Are Not “Activism”

According to DxE, veganism and vegan advocacy are “harmful” because they are about “personal choice” and “consumer lifestyle.” Hsiung claims that “Donald Watson coined the term in 1944 as primarily a consumer lifestyle.” Watson was not concerned with the larger political issues, according to Hsiung.

This comment indicates that Hsiung has either never read Watson or he is deliberately misrepresenting him.

We need go further than the statement made by Watson when he introduced the term “vegan” in 1944:

We can see quite plainly that our present civilisation is built on the exploitation of animals, just as past civilisations were built on the exploitation of slaves, and we believe the spiritual destiny of man is such that in time he will view with abhorrence the idea that men once fed on the products of animals’ bodies. Even though the scientific evidence may be lacking, we shrewdly suspect that the great impediment to man’s moral development may be that he is a parasite of lower forms of animal life.

I certainly disagree with aspects of Watson’s thinking. I do not, for example, share his view that vegetarianism is a gateway to veganism. And I think it is imperative to make an explicit connection between animal rights and human rights and the need to reject all discrimination–a point that Watson did not discuss explicitly.

The Vegan Society, which Watson helped to found, has certainly gone in the direction of promoting veganism as a consumerist lifestyle. And I have openly and repeatedly criticized them for abandoning Watson’s progressive vision in favor of promoting the idea that veganism is about consuming products that the Vegan Society “trademark.” Indeed, if Donald Watson were still alive, he would be absolutely horrified at what the Vegan Society has become.

But it is beyond absurd to say that Watson’s position was merely “personal” or “consumerist,” and that Watson did not see veganism as a political act and as part of a political movement that embraced nonviolence. Watson regarded the vegan movement as “the greatest movement that ever was” because it provided a solution to the crisis of greed and violence that affected and afflicted humankind and that threatened ecological disaster.

When I challenged Hsiung on his position on Watson on Bob Linden’s show, he stated that he really thought highly of Watson and that if we could “create 100,000 Donald Watsons…we could change the world overnight.” This is puzzling. Why would Hsiung want “100,000 Donald Watsons” if he believes that vegan advocacy is “harmful”? And if we did magically end up with “100,000 Donald Watsons” who promoted veganism, they would be told to not promote veganism but, instead, to promote “activism.”

This makes no sense.

In any event, and putting aside that, in many respects, the personal/political distinction is illusory, it is clear that adopting veganism as a moral imperative is not merely a matter of “personal choice” or “consumer lifestyle.” It is a political decision by the individual to reject the victimization of the vulnerable and the commodification of nonhuman animals that is pervasive in our society. It is a commitment by the individual to stop contributing to the demand that makes institutionalized animal exploitation possible. It is a commitment to the most fundamental prerequisite for justice for nonhuman animals.

And advocating veganism as a moral imperative is certainly activism. To say that someone advocating veganism as a moral baseline is simply seeking to get people to adopt a particular “consumer lifestyle” is ludicrous.

Are there people who do view veganism merely as a matter of “consumer lifestyle” and “personal choice”? There certainly are. The large animal charities, which, as I explain below, Hsiung actively supports, accept the status of animals as economic commodities and just demand a better “product.” They do not promote veganism as any sort of moral imperative. But Watson didn’t look at it that way and abolitionists (as I use that term) certainly do not.

Why would DxE take the position that veganism–either as the decision of the individual and as a matter of social advocacy and education–is not activism?

I had an opportunity to discuss this and other issues with Hsiung when Bob Linden invited me to talk with Hsiung on Go Vegan Radio.

In response to my question about why vegan advocacy was not “activism,” Hsiung used the following hypothetical: Let’s assume we come upon a child being beaten by a mob. How should we respond? We can say that we disapprove and refuse to participate. Or we can take action to help the child. Wayne believes that the first response–non-participation–is analogous to the vegan response, and the second response–disruption of the activity–is analogous to the DxE “activist” response. He concludes that since the first reaction is inadequate morally because we are obligated to act to stop the beating of the child, veganism fails.

This analogy shows clearly that Hsiung fails to understand the nature of animal exploitation. For the analogy to work, the bystanders would have to be paying the mob to beat the child. The mob would not be beating the child if the bystanders did not pay them to do so. That is how animal exploitation works. The “mob” of exploiters is killing animals because the bystanders are demanding that they do so and paying them to do it.

When we change the hypothetical so that it is analogous to what goes on with animal exploitation, the only appropriate response is for the bystanders to say to the mob, “stop that; we will not pay you to beat the child.” The only way that can stop the producers from killing animals is to stop demanding that they do so. And that is exactly what vegan advocacy aims to do.

Once we understand how animal exploitation works (and it’s not rocket science), we see that Hsiung’s comments about veganism/vegan advocacy as not being activism are just silly. Indeed, Hsiung is telling people not to demand the end of the exploitation that they are demanding.

This makes no sense.

Vegan Advocacy is “Harmful”

DxE claims not only that veganism and vegan advocacy do not involve “activism,” but that vegan advocacy is “harmful.” When I first saw this claim by DxErs, I thought they were making the same point that Singer and other utilitarians make: that promoting veganism as a moral imperative is harmful as a contingent matter because it may turn people away from being vegan because they may think it is too difficult.

But Hsiung and DxE go further: they think that promoting veganism is inherently harmful.

And why do the DxErs think that? Hsiung explained on the Bob Linden show that veganism advocacy is like the “free produce movement” of the 19th century that promoted a boycott on products made by slaves as a way of ending slavery. Hsiung claimed that some abolitionists, such as William Lloyd Garrison, criticized that approach as ineffective and as counterproductive.

Again, Hsiung’s use of this analogy again shows he does not understand the nature of animal exploitation.

The free produce movement sought a boycott of products made by slaves. With animal exploitation, the animals are the products. Vegan advocacy is not promoting a boycott of products made by animals; it is actively rejecting the status of animals as commodities. It is rejecting the status of animals as property.

To the extent that some abolitionists rejected the Free Produce Movement, it was because they thought it was ineffective relative to other things that would, it was argued, bring about abolition more quickly. They claimed that the Free Produce Movement did not attack slavery directly. Abolitionist veganism is a direct attack on animal slavery. Indeed, the very first first principle of the Abolitionist Approach is that nonhumans have a moral right not to be used as property. The second principle is that we must abolish and not merely regulate animal use. The third principle is that abolition requires veganism both as an individual and social matter.

A movement that promotes veganism as a moral baseline is, without doubt, the most effective tool for ending animal exploitation. If every vegan persuaded one other person to go vegan in the next year, and this pattern were repeated every year by the prior group of vegans and the new group of vegans, the world would be vegan in about a decade. Now, we all know that is not going to happen, but if all animal advocates embraced veganism as a moral imperative and educated themselves so that they could educate others effectively, we would certainly get closer to abolition in a decade than we will doing anything else.

Hsiung claims that if someone chooses to go vegan, it has no effect on reducing demand. That’s correct but, again, Hsiung misses the point. The Abolitionist Movement is seeking to inspire collective action–to build a movement of millions who reject the exploitation of animals and who want to bring about the end of animal exploitation. And the only way to end animal slavery is to end the use of animals as commodities. And the only way to end the use of animals as commodities is by individuals no longer eating, wearing, or using animals and acting collectively with others to persuade others to do the same as a matter of a moral imperative.

Moreover, Hsiung’s criticism that the individual decision to embrace veganism as a moral baseline does not reduce overall demand or do anything to effect any change as far as animals are concerned can be said about anything that anyone, including the DxErs, proposes as an alternative. For example, one of the DxErs, a DxE blogger and organizer named Kelly, has this advice:

So stop talking about veganism. Stop talking about vegan products. Stop talking about individual humans. Talk about speciesism. Talk about the animals. Talk about culture.

And shout about atrocity.

Assuming there is any substantive content to whatever Kelly thinks that people should be doing here, it is rather clear that one person talking about animals, culture, and speciesism, and shouting about “atrocity,” is not going to amount to a very big hill of beans. Moreover, when Kelly has these discussions with people, and they respond by saying, “hey Kelly, that’s really interesting, what can I do to make a difference?”, Kelly won’t tell them that they should stop participating in animal exploitation and go vegan. Rather, she will tell them to talk to others about animals, speciesism, and culture. And she will tell them to shout about atrocity. But she won’t mention veganism because that isn’t activism. That’s “harmful.”

This makes no sense.

In any event, Hsiung and all the DxErs misrepresent the vegan abolitionist movement and claim it is not about collective action; it is only about “consumer lifestyles” and promoting vegan options at non-vegan resturants.

That is simply and unequivocally false.

Those who embrace veganism as a moral baseline embrace the idea that animal exploitation is unjust. They are shouting about the atrocity of animal exploitation. But they are offering a strategy for ending animal exploitation in the most direct and effective way–by getting people to reject the status of animals as resources for humans, and educating others about the need to do so.

A point I made above (and that will be discussed further below) bears repeating here: there are “animal advocates” who reject veganism as a moral baseline and who embrace welfarist veganism–the idea that veganism is just one of many ways of reducing animal suffering (along with larger cages and “happy” animal products). These “animal advocates” do portray veganism as a matter of consumerism and get all excited about vegan options offered at fast-food chains. And it is precisely those groups that Hsiung and DxE works with and supports.

So DxE rejects advocating veganism as a moral baseline as a fundamental principle of justice because it is, according to DxE, “consumerist,” but embraces welfarist groups that reject veganism as a moral imperative and that characterize veganism in a completely consumerist manner as one way of reducing suffering through consumer choice–along with all sorts of “happy” exploitation.

This makes no sense.

Indeed, it makes your head hurt even to try to grasp this nonsense. But nonsense–and nothing more–is exactly what it is.

What Does DxE Consider as Non-Harmful “Activism”?

DxE thinks that vegan advocacy is not “activism” and is “harmful.”

So what does DxE regard as productive “activism?

Well, they promote chanting “it’s not food, it’s violence” or “until all are free” or whatever it is the DxErs chant at Chipotle restaurants as bemused patrons look at them the way they would someone singing, whistling, or talking to themselves:

And if someone at one of these DxE protests should ask one of the DxErs what to do to as a practical matter, they won’t be advised to go vegan and promote veganism to others–they’ll be advised to become “activists.”

This makes no sense.

Hsiung and the DxErs have no problem with nonvegans participating in these “activist” events. So nonvegans are welcome to come and chant slogans at other nonvegans?

This makes no sense.

DxE claims that

[t]o change the institutions that hurt animals, we need to create millions of “water cooler conversations” about animal rights around the world.

For Hsiung and his DxErs, a non-vegan “water cooler conversation” about animal rights is “activism” but the same conversation around the same water cooler that links animal rights with veganism as moral imperative is “harmful.”

This makes no sense.

Hsiung explains that

We don’t need to convince 100% of the public to ‘go vegan.’ We need to inspire those who are already vegan to take action.

Okay, so we need vegans to be “activists” but we don’t need them to advocate for veganism; we just need them to be “activists” who don’t advocate for veganism because veganism is “harmful.”

This makes no sense.

DxE also promotes open rescue–going into facilities and rescuing individual chickens:

ScreenHunter_1071 Sep. 12 09.38

Given that we are killing billions of animals, that’s not a very sound strategy for change, particularly given that every chicken rescued will be replaced by another victim. Sure, it may save some lives and that is a good thing. But saving lives can be done by anyone who goes to a shelter and rescues one of the thousands of animals who are killed every day (and who will not be replaced as part of a production cycle in the same way that a hen rescued from a battery will be). The latter may not lend itself to dramatic, staged videos accompanied by requests for donations, but it does save lives. In any event, the idea that rescuing chickens is any substitute for vegan advocacy is absurd. The idea may appeal to people who are so eager to do “something” that they can’t realize that Hsiung makes no sense, but that “strategy” cannot and will not end animal use.

Another example of DxE “activism”: disrupting a speech by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and calling him on his veto of legislation banning the gestation crate:

DxE also engages in single-issue campaigns, in “solidarity” with all of the new welfarist groups that promote the counterproductive idea that some animal products are worse than others, and protest foie gras:

They protest the Ringling Brothers circus along with PETA:

Hey, wait a second. How do all of these sorts of “activism” differ from what other new welfarist groups do?

The answer: they don’t. DxE is just another new welfarist group with the addition of street theater, matching t-shirts, candle holding, and Hsiung claiming that social science research proves that the DxE approach is scientifically sound.

ScreenHunter_1052 Sep. 03 01.23

ScreenHunter_1070 Sep. 12 08.58

(Click to enlarge.)

It’s interesting and not just a little ironic that a group that claims to distance itself from the “consumerist lifestyle” is so relentlessly into branding.

Slogans like “It’s not food, it’s violence,” and “Until all are free” are just more of the incoherent nonsense that we hear from all the new welfarist groups. No message of veganism. No normative direction of what people can do to make a difference. Just slogans and the same very tired single-issue campaigns that the new welfarists have been promoting forever.

ScreenHunter_1049 Sep. 03 00.51

DxE claims to reject welfare reform at the same time that Hsiung says that welfare reforms are “necessary, but they should be sustainable and part of a long term movement strategy.”

There isn’t a single new welfarist group that would disagree with that statement.

This makes no sense.

DxE claims to reject animal use but embraces Peter Singer’s welfarist “animal liberation” approach. When I asked Hsiung about this on Bob Linden’s show, he responded by saying that DxE accepts what Singer’s position was in 1976, when he wrote Animal Liberation. Apparently, Hsiung thinks that Singer’s position then was more radical than it is now. That assumption is incorrect. Singer has always rejected animal rights. He has never promoted veganism as a moral imperative. Indeed, in 1976, Singer explicitly rejected moral rights and maintained that animals are not self-aware and do not have an interest in continuing to live. Singer rejected the position that animal use is per se morally objectionable.

This makes no sense.

Hsiung claims that he opposes animal welfare but stated that he wanted DxE to help the work of new welfarist Bruce Friedrich be “more effective.”:

First, if our goal is network building, it is absolutely vital to emphasize that our model of activism — building a movement for nonviolent direct action — complements many of the strategies taken by other groups. If we are successful — as I fully expect we will be — our activism will make the lobbying, outreach, and education that Bruce does exponentially more effective. Indeed, in many ways, that is the entire point of nonviolent direct action: to create so much energy behind an issue that less assertive methods can finally sink in the way they should!

This makes no sense.

Although the other groups talk out of all sides of their fundraising mouths to make sure they keep the donor pool as broad as possible–PETA complains about Whole Foods at the same time it embraces the Whole Foods “happy” exploitation program (and the “happy” exploitation of other exploiters)–DxE takes the “animal confusion movement” to new heights.

Some people think DxE does not solicit donations. In the beginning, they did not. But that changed pretty quickly:

ScreenHunter_1054 Sep. 03 01.45

(Click to enlarge.)

And they don’t pay salaries to people so that there are yet more careerist “animal activists” out there. No. They seek donations to pay “activist stipends.”

DxE boasts that

Writer James McWilliams tells us we’re doing today’s “most compelling animal activist work”!

That’s the very same James McWilliams who has become captain of the cheerleading squad for HSUS and other welfarist groups, and who condemns vegans who promote veganism as a moral imperative. McWilliams thinks that an organization like DxE is “compelling.” How not surprising.

Hsiung regurgitates the new welfarist nonsense that veganism as a moral imperative is meaningless because we cannot avoid harming animals:

[A]nimals are commoditized, abused, and killed everywhere in our society. For example, plant-based agriculture involves the use and slaughter of countless animals in fertilization, plowing and tilling, energy consumption, and habitat displacement. Climate change rivals animal agriculture in its likely impact on non-human life, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Veganism as non-violence, then, is at best, a myth; and at worst, a malicious corporate deception. Veganism, even when effective, merely replaces one set of abused and killed victims for another. We must do better than that if we hope to see a world where animal liberation is a reality.

So we have to do better than veganism but we must not advocate veganism because advocating veganism is “harmful.”

This makes no sense.

DxE claims that wherever animals are exploited, they “will rise up and fight for what is right.” But they won’t promote veganism. That is “harmful.”

This makes no sense.

In sum, the modern “animal movement” has rejected veganism as a moral imperative. And now, we have a new welfarist street theater ensemble complete with matching t-shirts and relentless branding gimmicks that tells us that vegan advocacy is “harmful” and does not count as “activism.”

To call this shameful really does not even begin to capture the problem here.


If you are not vegan, please go vegan. Veganism is about nonviolence. First and foremost, it’s about nonviolence to other sentient beings. But it’s also about nonviolence to the earth and nonviolence to yourself.

If animals matter morally, veganism is not an option — it is a necessity. Anything that claims to be an animal rights movement must make clear that veganism is a moral imperative.

Embracing veganism as a moral imperative and advocating for veganism as a moral imperative are, along with caring for nonhuman refugees, the most important acts of activism for you can undertake.

The World is Vegan! If you want it.

Learn more about veganism at

Gary L. Francione
Board of Governors Distinguished Professor, Rutgers University

©2015 Gary L. Francione

Animal Abuse: Us and Them

This week, a radio show in Boston aired a recording in which a Municipal Court Judge in Ohio recently sentenced a woman accused of leaving her dog in a filthy house to spend eight hours in a garbage dump. People are commending what the judge did; after all, the defendant did not act “humanely.” She abused the dog. And we don’t like that.

Also this week, media were abuzz with the news that Walter Palmer, the Minnesota dentist who killed Cecil the lion and who faces extradition to Zimbabwe, had returned to work amidst protests and continued anger by many over Palmer’s killing of Cecil for no reason other than that he derived pleasure from doing so. He inflicted unnecessary suffering and death on Cecil. And we don’t like that.

There is an endless stream of similar stories and the public reaction is almost always the same: we object to instances where people impose suffering or death of animals when there is no necessity. They abuse animals. And we don’t like that. Perhaps the most noteworthy example of this phenomenon involves football player Michael Vick, who, in 2007, was charged with operating a dog fighting operation. Despite Vick’s having spent time in prison and publicly acknowledging that what he did was wrong, many people still won’t forgive him. He inflicted suffering and death on those animals. And we don’t like that.

The problem is that this “us/them” distinction—this idea that some of us are animal abusers and some of us are not—is based on outright hypocrisy. We’re all in the same boat.

Let’s focus just on our most numerically significant use of animals—for food. We kill about 60 billion land animals every year, and an unknown but much larger number of aquatic animals, for food. If imposing suffering and death without necessity constitutes abuse, then all of those deaths constitute abuse and all of us who partake of those animals are abusers.

Before you even think of saying that what we do is different from what they do because we need to use and kill animals for health reasons, let’s be clear: it’s not necessary to eat animal foods to maintain health. Mainstream professional organizations, including the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, the British Nutritional Foundation, the Dieticians Association of Australia, the Dieticians of Canada, and the Heart and Stroke Foundation; research and teaching institutions, including the Mayo Clinic, the UCLA Health Center, the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, and the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine; government agencies, such as the British National Health Service and the United States Department of Agriculture; and even large managed care organizations, such as Kaiser Permanente, all acknowledge that a sound vegan diet is perfectly adequate for human health and some say that a vegan diet may even have significant health benefits.

The best justification we have for imposing suffering and death on billions of animals every year is that they taste good. We enjoy the taste of meat, dairy, eggs, etc. We get palate pleasure from eating animal foods.

And just how is that different from any other imposition of suffering and death by people like Walter Palmer, Michael Vick, or anyone else whom we label as an “abuser”? The answer is simple; it isn’t any different. Yes, there may be a psychological difference between someone who actually participates in killing animals and those who just go to the supermarket to buy animals someone else has killed. There may also be a psychological difference between the person who actually murders another human being and the person who paid an assassin to pull the trigger. But both are equally morally culpable and that is why the law considers them both to be guilty of murder. Any psychological difference between the Walter Palmer and the rest of us is irrelevant as far as morality is concerned.

And it’s not just a matter of making sure that animals used for food are treated or killed “humanely.” Would anyone be less upset if Palmer had killed Cecil in a more “humane” way rather than letting him linger for a long while with Palmer’s arrow stuck into him? No, of course not. The concept of “humane” treatment has no application in the context of suffering and killing that is itself unnecessary.

Unfortunately, many supposed “animal advocacy” organizations promote the idea that the “humane” use of animals for food is not only not objectionable but morally just fine. Just this week, the New York Times announced that McDonald’s will begin phasing out using eggs from hens who have been confined in conventional battery cages in favor of “aviary systems” that allow the birds some movement. McDonald’s estimates that it will take about 10 years to achieve a completely “cage-free” supply. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and Mercy for Animals (MFA) are uncontrollably delighted about this. HSUS has declared this move to be a “watershed moment for animal welfare” and calling McDonald’s “admirable” and, in the words of HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle, this results in the elimination of the “cruelest confinement from our food supply” at least as far as McDonald’s is concerned. MFA is claiming that its investigation of McDonald’s egg suppliers was responsible for the announcement.

We applaud McDonald’s for its commitment to phasing out cruel cages in its North American egg supply chain,” said MFA’s president, Nathan Runkle. “It’s high time that McDonald’s acknowledged that cramming animals in cages barely larger than their bodies is inhumane and unethical.

Runkle tells us that:

McDonald’s should continue this praiseworthy progress by adopting meaningful standards for chickens killed for Chicken McNuggets.

MFA advises those concerned:

You can help! Tell McDonald’s that chickens raised for meat deserve protections just like those raised for laying eggs.

Once again, we see the us/them distinction: those businesses who use conventional eggs are abusers; those who use the “cage-free” eggs promoted by “animal advocates” are morally enlightened. We believe that is wrong.

First of all, it is folly to maintain that “cage-free” eggs involve anything more than moving the birds from a cage to a large shed in which the birds are cramped and living in hideous conditions. Paul Shapiro, Vice President for Farm Animal Protection at HSUS is quoted in the New York Times story as praising McDonald’s decision. He sent an email just today with the subject line “wow” and telling us that “the battle over battery cages is far from over” but that animal advocates “should use this momentum to place the battery cage where it belongs once and for all: in the dustbin of history.”

ScreenHunter_1064 Sep. 11 18.00

(Click to enlarge.)

Wow, indeed.

But in 2004, before Shapiro went to work for HSUS, he had a distinctly different view of “cage-free” systems:

But “cage free” doesn’t necessarily mean much in terms of quality of life for hens. Eggs labeled “cage free” often come from hens packed side by side in massive sheds, Shapiro says.

That’s right. That’s Paul before he went to work for HSUS. And that’s astonishing. Again: Wow.

The fact remains that “cage-free” eggs do not involve a significant increase in the protection of animal interests. Indeed, the “cage-free” egg is nothing more than very cruel (to the animals) gimmick. Here is what Shapiro, HSUS, and Runkle are celebrating:

ScreenHunter_1065 Sep. 11 18.10

(Click to enlarge.)

Some “watershed.”

Second, once again, supposed “animal advocates” partner with the “happy” exploitation industry to make people feel more comfortable about continuing to participate in animal exploitation. They once again normalize animal exploitation by celebrating it.

People like Pacelle, Shapiro, and Runkle would do well to study the work of Elizabeth Heyrick, an 18th century British abolitionist who rejected the idea of the “gradual emancipation” of slaves in favor of “immediate emancipation.” She understood that “gradual emancipation” helped the slave owners because it served to normalize slavery and make it acceptable as an institution rather than condemning it as the fundamental injustice it involved. In her excellent pamphlet published in 1838, Immediate, Not Gradual Abolition, she wrote:

The enemies of slavery have hitherto ruined their cause by the senseless cry of gradual emancipation. It is marvellous that the wise and the good should have suffered themselves to have been imposed upon by this wily artifice of the slave holder, for with him must the project of gradual emancipation have first originated. The slave holder knew very well that his prey would be secure, so long as the abolitionists could be cajoled into a demand for gradual instead of immediate abolition. He knew very well that the contemplation of a gradual emancipation, would beget a gradual indifference to emancipation itself.

And that is precisely what welfarists like HSUS and MFA are doing: they are working with institutional exploiters to normalize “happy” exploitation.

In any event, the idea of “humane” exploitation of animals we use for food runs afoul of a moral principle that we purport to accept and that serves as the basis of our us/them distinction—that, whatever else we may believe about animal ethics, imposing suffering and death on animal in the absence of necessity or compulsion cannot be morally acceptable.

The problem with the us/them distinction is that most of us end up being on the them side. If we believe that animals matter morally, we need to draw the line between those who eat, wear, and use nonhuman animals and thereby participate in and perpetuate the deliberate and intentional victimization of the vulnerable–animal slavery–and those who do not.


If you are not vegan, please go vegan. Veganism is about nonviolence. First and foremost, it’s about nonviolence to other sentient beings. But it’s also about nonviolence to the earth and nonviolence to yourself.

If animals matter morally, veganism is not an option — it is a necessity. Anything that claims to be an animal rights movement must make clear that veganism is a moral imperative.

The World is Vegan! If you want it.

Learn more about veganism at

Gary L. Francione
Board of Governors Distinguished Professor, Rutgers University

Anna Charlton
Adjunct Professor of Law, Rutgers University

©2015 Gary L. Francione & Anna Charlton

Vegan Elitism: Ronnie Lee on “Ordinary People”

A very typical message we get from many “animal advocates” is that we can’t say that veganism is a moral baseline. That is, we can’t say that veganism is a moral obligation and a moral imperative. We can only promote reducing suffering. People just won’t understand it or be able to process the vegan position. People must be manipulated and not educated. And we understand their inability “get it.” After all, they’re not as smart or as good as we are.

Would you like an excellent example of this completely reactionary, elitist, and patronizing attitude?

Ronnie Lee, who founded the Animal Liberation Front, and who calls himself a “socialist animal liberationist,” responded in a blog post to a suggestion that animal advocates promote vegetarianism rather than veganism because the latter is just too “radical.”

Lee had this to say:

I feel there’s a strong case for the toe-in-the-water approach you suggest, Mark. Nick Cooney mentions this in his excellent Science of Animal Advocacy talk ( I attended a similar presentation by Nick in Birmingham a few months ago and was very impressed by what he had to say because, like myself, he believes we need to take into account the limitations of ordinary people and understand how they really operate in order to change their behaviour, rather than bestowing intellectual and moral abilities on them that they don’t, in reality, possess.

Here’s a screenshot from the actual blog post in case you find the quote as unbelievable as I did:

ScreenHunter_1040 Aug. 31 07.09

(Click to enlarge.)

So “ordinary people” don’t possess sufficient “intellectual and moral abilities”?

That is, as the Brits say, bollocks. And coming from someone who calls himself a “socialist.” Lee’s comment is about as reactionary as reactionary gets.

I don’t expect more from Nick Cooney, who works for Mercy for Animals–a group that openly promotes “happy” exploitation and that joined Peter Singer in inaugurating the “happy” exploitation movement in 2005:

(Click to enlarge.)

Mercy for Animals regularly partners with industry to peddle the fantasy that we can exploit “compassionately.” Here’s a recent advertisement promoting Walmart sent out by MFA Executive Director, Nathan Runkle:

(Click to enlarge.)

The business model of these groups involves rejecting veganism as a moral imperative in favor of promoting the idea that veganism is just one way of reducing suffering–along with crate-free pork, cage-free eggs, vegetarianism, Meatless Monday, etc. They all are all equally valid. And they trot out Cooney, who cites studies and doctrines that he either does not understand or that he blatantly misrepresents so that he can assure everyone that not promoting veganism as a moral baseline will eventually get people to see that veganism is the moral baseline. But it will take time and manipulation and promoting “happy” exploitation in the meantime.

That’s a great business model if you want to keep your donor pool as large as possible. And I do understand that these corporate charities need to bring in a great deal of money so that they can employ lots of people who have jobs as paid “activists.” These groups, in effect, sell licenses so that people can continue consuming animals with a stamp of approval from these animal welfare groups. All any nonvegan has to do is to buy crate-free pork from Walmart and make a donation and they can be “compassionate” consumers. They can be “animal advocates.”

That’s a terrible model if you want to shift the paradigm away from animals as property and toward animals as persons and educate people about why veganism is the only rational response to recognizing that animals matter morally.

But I expected more from Ronnie Lee. I don’t agree with Lee about a number of things but I am really disappointed to see him buy into the completely reactionary and elitist idea peddled by the bloated corporate charities–that the “ordinary people” are just not smart enough or moral enough to be at “our” level. Lee claims to be a supporter of social justice. How about justice for “ordinary people”? How about not buying into the corporate welfarist view that people are all stupid and immoral? How about educating people in an honest and straightforward manner that respects both their intelligence and their moral sensibilities?

In 2010, I did a blog post/podcast in which I outlined the Abolitionist Approach to Education:

Principle #1: People are good at heart.
Our default position when we talk with people ought to be that they are good at heart, and interested in, and educable about, moral issues. There is a tendency among at least some advocates to have a very misanthropic view of other humans and to see them as being inherently immoral or uninterested in issues of morality. I disagree with that view.

Principle #2: People are not stupid.
There is a tendency among animal advocates to believe that the general public is not able to understand the arguments in favor of veganism and that we must “go easy” and instead of talking about veganism, we should talk about vegetarianism, “Meat Free Monday,” “happy” meat and animal products, etc. I disagree with this very elitist way of thinking about other people. There is no mystery here; there is nothing complicated. People can understand if we teach effectively.

Principle #3: Do not get defensive; respond, don’t react.
Yes, some people will try to provoke us or will ask questions or make comments that we find insulting or that we take not to be serious. If someone is really not interested in what we are saying, they will, as a general matter, walk away. Treat every comment and question—even the ones you find abrasive, rude, or sarcastic—as an invitation being offered to you by someone who is more provoked (in a positive way) by you and engaged than you might think.

Principle #4: Do not get frustrated. Education is hard work.
You will get the same question many times; you will be asked questions that indicate you must start at the beginning with someone. But if you want to be an effective educator, you have to answer every question as if it is the first time you heard it. If you want others to be enthusiastic about your message, you have to be enthusiastic about it first.

Principle #5: Learn the basics. You have to be a student first before you become a teacher.
Many animal advocates become excited about abolitionist veganism and the next thing that happens is that they set up a website or start a blog that is motivated by the right feelings but not informed by clear ideas. Before you teach others, learn about the basics.It’s not hard to learn the basics; anyone can do so.

In any event, one of the things I have learned is that “ordinary people” get it. They get it just fine. The arguments for veganism as a moral imperative are perfectly intelligible to anyone who cares enough to listen. Indeed, most people understand the idea that it’s wrong to inflict suffering on animals for reasons of pleasure or amusement, or convenience even if they don’t otherwise accept the egalitarianism of a true animal rights approach. That is precisely why people respond the way they do to people like Michael Vick and Mary Bale.

If we are going to change the world, we need to encourage critical thinking and not support the business model of the large, bloated welfare corporations, which portrays “ordinary people” as too stupid or too morally depraved to understand a simple message:

If you agree that animals matter morally, if you agree that animals aren’t just things that don’t matter morally, then, at the very least, you cannot justify imposing suffering and death on animals for reasons of pleasure, including palate pleasure, or mere convenience.


If you are not vegan, please go vegan. Veganism is about nonviolence. First and foremost, it’s about nonviolence to other sentient beings. But it’s also about nonviolence to the earth and nonviolence to yourself.

If animals matter morally, veganism is not an option — it is a necessity. Anything that claims to be an animal rights movement must make clear that veganism is a moral imperative.

The World is Vegan! If you want it.

Learn more about veganism at

Gary L. Francione
Board of Governors Distinguished Professor, Rutgers University

©2015 Gary L. Francione

After 30+ Years, Morrissey Goes Vegan But Calls Veganism “Purist”

Morrissey has finally recognized–after three decades of collecting royalties from Meat is Murder–that all animal products are murder.

ScreenHunter_1035 Aug. 29 08.36

Morrissey made this announcement on the Larry King Show. And he made very sure to reinforce the idea that being vegan is anything but a moral imperative. Indeed, his denigration of veganism sounded like the sort of thing you hear about veganism from the large new welfarist charities.

What he said was very damaging and counterproductive.

When King asked him about going vegan, Morrissey responded:

Well, it’s just a gradual thing. Everybody begins as vegetarian. Because to dive straight forward into being completely purist is very hard for most people. Financially they can’t do it. And also you have to find food.

What complete and utter nonsense.

First of all, it’s not difficult. This is the same line we hear again and again from the large animal charities. You will recall Fiona Oakes, Ambassador of The “Vegan” Society, saying on BBC that veganism is not “for everyone” and “it’s not probably for very many people.” That’s just anti-vegan propaganda. It’s hard only if you don’t care about our moral obligations to animals. If you do, it’s as easy as any other decision you make to respect the fundamental rights of other. And so-called “animal advocates” should never say otherwise.

Second, he regurgitates the same new welfarist line that veganism is “purist.” That’s the sort of thing that PETA and Farm Sanctuary say when they are defending non-vegan or flexitarian positions.

It’s not a matter of “purity” any more than it is a matter of “purity” to respect the fundamental rights of humans. We would not say that anyone who rejected slavery, rape, and child molestation was a “purist.” The same applies to nonhumans. Veganism is the least we owe animals if we believe they matter morally. There is no morally coherent distinction between meat and any other animal product. They all involve suffering. They all involve death. They all involve injustice.

In “Meat is Murder,” Morrissey sings:

And the calf that you carve with a smile
It is murder.

And for 30 years he hasn’t recognized that to consume milk, cheese, etc. necessarily involves the deaths of calves? And to recognize and act on that involves being a “purist”?

All animal foods involve suffering and death and the only justification for any of it is palate pleasure. As the song states:

It’s death for no reason
And death for no reason is murder.

But to recognize that and act on it is a matter of being a “purist”?

That’s wrong. Respecting the fundamental rights of nonhumans is not a matter of being a “purist.” It is a simple matter of doing what we are morally obligated to do.

Third, a diet of vegetables, fruits, grains, beans, and seeds is invariably cheaper than a diet of animal foods. It does not help for him to reinforce the completely false and counterproductive idea that veganism is only for the affluent.

And even if being vegan were more expensive, which is not the case, why would that stop Morrissey from going vegan for 30+ years? He’s quite well off.

Fourth, what is this nonsense that it’s hard to find vegan food? It’s not difficult to find vegetables, fruits, beans, grains, and seeds. Indeed, it’s hard not to find them.

It took him 30+ years to go vegan. That’s strong proof that the “animal movement” has failed miserably in promoting veganism as a moral baseline. Veganism is sidelined as just another way of reducing suffering–along with going vegetarian, consuming crate-free pork, eggs from “cage-free” hens, milk from “happy” cows, etc. And that’s the problem. If animals matter morally, we cannot eat, wear, or use animals.

Morrissey showed King his Stella McCartney non-leather shoes made in Italy. I suppose that was to reinforce the idea that going vegan is difficult because not many people can afford Stella McCartney shoes. That, of course, is also silly. Good vegan shoes cost less than what a decent (not designer) pair of leather shoes cost. And Stella McCartney, supposedly a vegan, produces clothing made from wool. But she claims that the sheep are not mistreated. That, of course, is also complete nonsense.

It’s bad enough that high-visibility people like Morrissey and Paul McCartney pose as “animal people” when they are not vegan. They send a message to people that “animal people” don’t have to be vegan as long as they “care.” Although that is the message that the large animal charities want to promote (it allows nonvegans to feel comfortable in donating), it’s a very wrong and very damaging message.

And it is also damaging to make the sort of announcement that Morrissey made when he decided to go vegan. He regurigated the idea that going vegan is just an option and not a moral imperative, and that it is difficult and expensive.

But I am not sure that it is reasonable to expect more from a person who thinks that the Chinese are a “subspecies”.


If you are not vegan, please go vegan. Veganism is about nonviolence. First and foremost, it’s about nonviolence to other sentient beings. But it’s also about nonviolence to the earth and nonviolence to yourself.

If animals matter morally, veganism is not an option — it is a necessity. Anything that claims to be an animal rights movement must make clear that veganism is a moral imperative.

The World is Vegan! If you want it.

Learn more about veganism at

Gary L. Francione
Board of Governors Distinguished Professor, Rutgers University

©2015 Gary L. Francione

Vegan Advocacy is the Only Solution

The rich, bloated new welfarist charities tell us we have to promote welfarist “baby steps”–such as cage-free eggs and crate-free pork, and the Whole Foods Animal Welfare Rating system–in order to move things forward. All of these groups reject veganism as a moral baseline. Think about the perversity of their position: they are claiming we need to promote exploitation to move toward no exploitation. These groups partner with institutional exploiters and actually promote supposedly more “humane” animal exploitation. That makes no sense–morally or practically.

The new welfarist group, Direct Action Everywhere (DxE) even claims that vegan advocacy is “harmful” and argues that we need to promote “activism” and not veganism. They define “activism” as doing street theater, such as chanting “it’s not food, it’s violence” in Chipotle restaurants. And when someone in a Chipotle’s comes up to you and asks what they can do to help, you are not supposed to mention veganism. You’re supposed to tell them to do “activism.” I am sorry but that is insane.

Consider the following: There are an estimated 7.5 million vegans in the U.S. If every one of those vegans persuaded one other person to go vegan in the next year, there would be 15 million vegans. If every one of those persuaded one other person in the second year, there would be 30 million. If we repeated this every year, the entire country would be vegan in fewer than six years.

And even if the number of present vegans is only 1 million, it would take nine years to get to a vegan U.S. population–still preferable to another 30 years of taking “baby steps” backward.

In any event, if those who claimed to care about animals stopped supporting welfare reforms, happy exploitation, and narcissistic street theater, we could make veganism the prevailing paradigm.

So get out there and talk to everyone you know about why veganism is the only rational response to the recognition that animals matter morally.

The World is Vegan! If you want it.


If you are not vegan, please go vegan. Veganism is about nonviolence. First and foremost, it’s about nonviolence to other sentient beings. But it’s also about nonviolence to the earth and nonviolence to yourself.

If animals matter morally, veganism is not an option — it is a necessity. Anything that claims to be an animal rights movement must make clear that veganism is a moral imperative.

The World is Vegan! If you want it.

Learn more about veganism at

Gary L. Francione
Board of Governors Distinguished Professor, Rutgers University

©2015 Gary L. Francione

Sea Shepherd Weighs In on Cecil the Lion: Insisting on Veganism is “Purism” and “Elitist”

Paul Watson of the Sea Shepherd has weighed in on the controversy over Cecil the lion. Watson takes aim at those of us who make the point that there is absolutely no morally significant difference between killing animals for sporting pleasure and killing animals for palate pleasure, and that our objecting to the killing of Cecil requires us to reject killing the other 60+ billion animals (not counting sea animals) we kill to eat.

In “The Cult of Competitive Purism,” Watson maintains that those of us who take this position are “elitist” and guilty of “purism.”

Watson’s position comes as no surprise. But a simple examination of his position shows why he is in error.

Cecils on the Land and Cecils in the Water

Sea Shepherd is a large organization that brings in considerable amounts of money from donors all over the world, many — perhaps most — of whom are not vegan. Many — perhaps most — Sea Shepherd donors look at whales and other marine mammals in the same way that others look at Cecil the Lion and lament their exploitation at the same time they continue to consume other animals. They think marine mammals are special, in part because they are endangered or protected, and think that marine mammals count for more than do other animals as a moral matter. They think that just as Cecil died a horrible, prolonged death, marine mammals are killed in an inhumane way and are treated worse than the animals we eat.

And guess what? That’s exactly what Paul Watson has been telling them.

Here’s what Watson had to say in an interview in the The Guardian:

You cannot compare the killing of animals in a domestic slaughterhouse to the killing of a whale. What goes on with those whales – or dolphins, say, in Taiji – would never be tolerated in a slaughterhouse. Those slaughterhouses would be shut down. It takes from 10 to 45 minutes to kill a whale and they die in horrific agony. That would be completely intolerable and illegal in any slaughterhouse in the world.

Also they’re an endangered and protected species – pigs and cows are not. They’re part of an ecosystem, which pigs and cows are not. It always bothers me that that comparison is brought up. And especially when it’s brought up by the Japanese, who eat more pigs, cows, and chickens than all people of Australia and New Zealand combined. Only one percent of the Japanese people eat whales; for the most part they eat cows and pigs and chickens. It’s a ridiculous analogy.

Note: Watson says:

1. The exploitation of farm animals is less cruel than the exploitation of marine mammals.

We are not sure whether Watson has ever been in a slaughterhouse, but they’re hideous places and animals suffer a terrible death in the long process from arrival at the facility to their actual death on the killing floor. And the distress that those animals experience during that slaughtering process is palpable and every bit as bad as the physical pain they suffer.

Moreover, Watson’s comparison between the time it takes to kill a marine mammal and the time it takes to kill a farm animal is itself problematic. Marine mammals are not domesticated animals who spend their entire lives suffering; marine mammals live in the wild until the time they are killed. We certainly think that the killing of marine mammals or any sentient nonhuman is morally objectionable. But Watson’s statement that the analogy between the suffering of marine mammals and farm animals is “ridiculous” is itself ridiculous and suggests that Watson thinks that the suffering of marine mammals counts for more morally. That is just plain speciesism.

2. Watson is “bother[ed]” by the comparison between farm animals and marine mammals because the latter are “endangered and protected.”

So what? Does that make marine mammals more morally valuable? Not as far as we are concerned. An endangered marine mammal values her or his life just as a cow or pig or chicken or fish values her or his. It is just as wrong to kill a cow (or other sentient nonhuman) for no reason other than palate pleasure as it is to kill a marine mammal for palate pleasure or any other frivolous reason. What Watson is saying would lead to the conclusion that killing marine mammals would be less morally wrong if they were not endangered or protected. Maybe he would accept that conclusion. We wouldn’t.

In any event, Watson is operating a very wealthy charity that has all sorts of non-vegan donors who think of marine mammals as a group of Cecils who live in the ocean. They want to protect the Water Cecils as they continue to eat their animal products. Watson jumps to their defense.

Watson objects to our making crystal clear that there is a blatant moral inconsistency between objecting to the killing of Cecil the lion and continuing to consume animals because he does not want anyone saying that to those who fetishize marine mammals in addition to, or instead of, lions. In other words, Watson does not want anyone telling his donors that they are morally obligated to go vegan.

That’s no surprise.

What’s Really At Issue Here: Support for Single-Issue Campaigns and Vegansim as a Moral Imperative

We certainly agree with Watson that we should never treat as “inferior,” demean, or ridicule anyone who objects to the killing of Cecil, or the killing of dolphins or whales, or the eating of dogs in China or Korea, or the exploitation of any animal in any situation. That is why we spend a considerable portion of our time discussing animal ethics with people and groups who are not part of any “animal movement.” That is why we wrote Eat Like You Care: An Examination of the Morality of Eating Animals. We believe that anyone with a moral impulse or moral concern for animals is ripe for a consideration of the ethics of consuming animals and a candidate for the adoption of veganism as a moral principle.

But we do believe that we have an obligation to be crystal clear and to educate those who are concerned about particular acts or forms of animal exploitation that, if they are not vegan, they are active participants in the very conduct that they claim to decry. That is what we owe to the human who is, by expressing concern about a particular situation, trying to find her or his moral compass. That is what we owe to nonhumans, who are victimized in the hundreds of millions every single day.

We stress that vegan education — the clear, patient, comprehensive discussion of the ethical principles at issue — is the most effective act of activism that any individual can do to move the issue forward. Not yelling, not shaming, but discussion and education. At the same time, we are concerned that the “business model” of the large animal charities has a need for donations that steers them to animal welfare reforms and single-issue campaigns.

Sea Shepherd is an organization that promotes variations of the same single-issue campaign: the protection of marine mammals. What really concerns Watson is that those whom he denigrates as “elitists” and “purists” will not support such single-issue campaigns that are his stock in trade. In other words, those who express concern about Cecil, or whales and dolphins, or seal cubs, or whatever animal is being exploited should be “nurtured.” And what does that mean? It means that those people should be funneled into the web of groups like Sea Shepherd or one of the countless other groups who will “nurture” compassion by soliciting donations for their single-issue campaigns and never confront donors with the reality: Veganism is not an option; it’s a moral imperative. If animals matter morally, we cannot justify eating, wearing, or using them, and until we go vegan, we are active participants in institutionalized animal exploitation.

Single-issue campaigns — however different — are structurally identical. They all involve coalitions of people many of whom engage in behavior that is not morally different from the behavior that is the target of the single-issue campaign.

So a single issue campaign focused on the Taiji dolphins will have many people who object to the killing of dolphins but who shovel animal products into their mouths as they voice their concerns. The only way that such people are going to support such a campaign is if they are made to feel comfortable about their exploitation. And they are made to feel comfortable by an insidious pretense that the target of the campaign is immoral and their own conduct is not immoral, or is so much less immoral that they can never be thought of in the same way as the people who kill the dolphins. This makes people feel more comfortable about their own behavior that exploits animals and perpetuates it — and it also means that they donate.

As part of providing the comfort level that encourages support, these campaigns demonize those people who are involved in the targeted behavior in an effort to distinguish between them and the “good” people who are protesting the killing of the dolphins. This often results in and reinforces racist, ethnocentric, and xenophobic conduct on the part of “animal people.” One need only look at the sorts of vile anti-Asian comments that appear almost immediately following any story about Taiji, Japanese whaling, or the eating of dogs in China and Korea. The campaign against Andre Robinson elicited horribly racist slurs, as did the campaign against Michael Vick.

Watson thinks that to not support and to criticize these campaigns is “elitist” and represents “purism.” He’s wrong. Abolitionists just refuse to participate in and perpetuate the unjust fantasy that there is a difference between killing a dolphin and killing a chicken so that people who care can become “nurtured” by Sea Shepherd and other groups and never be confronted with the moral reality. Abolitionists want to promote the idea that if animals matter morally, veganism is the only rational response. Abolitionists want to promote the idea that we cannot justify treating any sentient nonhuman exclusively as a resource.

Watson disagrees with all of this. He admits that he thinks that marine mammals are special. He makes clear that Sea Shepherd is “promoting veganism not for animal-rights reasons but for environmental conservation reasons.” It can’t get any more clear than that. He rejects the very foundation of the abolitionist movement, which is that all sentient beings are equal in that all should be accorded the moral right not to be used as human resources. And that we ought to make that crystal clear today, right now.

We’re delighted that Watson serves vegan meals on his ships even if he does so for reasons of conservation alone. But go to the Sea Shepherd website. We did. We were unable to find anything that even hinted at the moral obligation to go vegan if one thought that killing marine mammals was morally wrong. We found one essay by Watson where he said:

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is one of the very few, if not the only marine conservation organizations in the world that actively promotes and practices veganism.

Why? Because we see the connections between animal husbandry and pollution in the ocean, diminishment of life in the seas, the destruction of the rainforests and climate change.

Veganism is real conservation in action. It goes beyond talking about climate change and diminishment of biodiversity and actually does something to address the problems.

But he made clear that veganism has nothing to do with any moral obligation that we owe other animals (apart from marine mammals):

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is not a vegan or vegetarian organization however, nor are we an Animal Rights or an Animal Welfare organization. We are a marine wildlife and habitat conservation movement.

So why are all the meals on Sea Shepherd ships vegan?

The answer is because vegetarianism and especially veganism are powerful alternatives to eight billion human beings and their domestic animals eating the oceans alive.

Watson’s environmental arguments for veganism are terrific, but they do not in any way involve getting “compassionate” people to see that there is no difference between killing a whale and eating a chicken. Indeed, Watson rejects that position.

Do Chickens Matter as Much as Whales?

Watson claims that:

Social revolutions do not happen overnight. I have watched the vegan movement grow from something no one had ever heard of to the dynamic and ever growing movement it is today. The growth in awareness has been incredible. What we don’t want to do is isolate or discourage potential advocates of veganism.

We have been involved in this movement for about the same period of time that Watson has. We like Watson; we just disagree with him.

We could not disagree more that the vegan movement is doing well, as he seems to think. On the contrary, the vegan movement has been hijacked by the “happy exploitation” movement that is now ubiquitous. Peter Singer, the so-called “father” of the animal movement, declares himself to be a “flexible vegan” and all of the large groups reject veganism as a moral baseline and promote it only as a way to reduce suffering — along with cage-free eggs, crate-free pork and the Whole Foods Animal Welfare Rating program. Abolitionists are trying to create a vegan movement of people who see veganism as a principle of fundamental justice.

Watson seems to think that we cannot make the abolitionist argument because “there are lots of stupid people out there” who just don’t see the connections and who must be “nurtured.” Putting aside that Watson’s characterization of everyone as idiots is curious given that he claims that vegans are “elitists” who look down on others, abolitionists believe that people are not stupid and that most, or at least a great many, care about nonhuman animals. People also know that animal products do not grow on trees and that animals suffer and die in order to end up on our plates. They may not know the particulars of what happens in raising and killing animals and that’s the point — the particulars are irrelevant. Going vegan should not depend on whether there are “abuses” at the slaughterhouse or on the factory farm. Going vegan should depend on a simple fact: that animals die so that we can eat and wear them. Just as those objecting to the killing of Cecil or to the killing of marine mammals would not stop objecting even if the killing process were made more “humane,” the morality of eating or wearing animals does not rest on how the animals are treated but only on that the animals are used in the first place.

We have an obligation to make clear that single-issue campaigns miss the point by perpetuating the fantasy that there is a difference between a whale and a cow, or between fur and wool. And it’s not a matter of “elitism.” Indeed, there is nothing more elitist than the idea that it is acceptable for us to exploit vulnerable nonhumans — and that is exactly what single-issue campaigns perpetuate.

So whenever we see stories in the news involving Cecil or any similar situation that elicits an outcry, we ought to use that story as an opportunity to engage in creative, nonviolent vegan advocacy and make clear that there is absolutely no difference between what those of us who are nonvegans do and what the people who have engaged in behavior to which we object do.

We wholeheartedly agree that a person who looks at an animal like Cecil and wants to kill him — indeed, pays a great deal of money to have the experience — seems to have disturbing psychological problems. Yet, as we all know, the animals who were killed for food or clothing were once living beings, no less important morally than Cecil, with their own interests, families, and biographies. Why does the act of ordering a hamburger or eating an ice cream cone, make us any less petty, oppressive, unjust, or cruel? If we do not squarely confront our relentless, ubiquitous, pervasive use of animals for palate pleasure or fashion, nothing will ever change.

So, we have no more excuse, no more justification for our actions than did Walter Palmer, who killed Cecil. We are all Walter Palmer. We need to stop the carnage. We need to stop the injustice. We need to shift the paradigm from property to moral personhood and the only way that we can do that is by working tirelessly to bring about a vegan world. The stronger an abolitionist movement becomes, the more animal exploitation of all sorts will end. Vegans will not go to zoos or sea parks; vegans will not go to the circus or rodeo; they will oppose the slaughter of any marine mammal, other aquatic animal, or land animal; they won’t wear any animals. Cut off the exploitation at the root and we won’t need countless single-issue campaigns, which, some 40 years into the modern animal “movement,” have had no impact.

Watson observes:

The reality is that most vegans were once not vegan. Many vegans started with feelings of compassion for their pets, or for animals they liked. These seeds of compassion, if nurtured by thoughtful education, can be inspired and motivated through positive encouragement.

This is the same old tired nonsense that we get from all of the animal welfare groups: “We’re all on the ‘journey’ and and as long as we are ‘compassionate,’ it’s all fine and no one should say otherwise or they’re just ‘purist’ or ‘elitist.'”

All of the large groups take this position. And it is explicitly speciesist. In order to see this clearly and easily, imagine the following: John was raised in a racist community. For the first 20 years of his life, John uttered racist epithets to every person of color he saw and he considered them to be inferior to whites. And then, one day, John, for whatever reason, saw that racism was wrong. John now wants to work for social justice and equality. Should John adopt the position that because he took 20 years to stop being racist, rejecting racism is a matter of being on a “journey” and that we cannot say that racism is morally wrong and must stop immediately? Of course not. John should take the position that we must educate people about racism but that we must be crystal clear that racism is morally wrong and must stop.

The fact that it may have taken someone a while to see that something is morally odious does not mean that we should not be unambiguously clear that it is morally odious and must stop. We don’t respond to racism with a campaign for “Racist-joke-free Monday.” We respond with a demand for justice.

Abolitionists are not criticizing individuals who are grappling with a new understanding of animal ethics. Where there are instances of personal clashes, that is unfortunate. What we are talking about, and planning for, is a redirecton of the message put out by the large organizations that dominate the arena — those groups that send out the countless solicitations for donation with the atrocity of the day and the appeal, “Help us stop [fill in the blank]. Send your donation for the animals!”

It is sad that Watson thinks that it’s fine — indeed, obligatory — to spend millions equipping, staffing, and operating ships to save a whale but that a sense of urgency and efforts to make clear that there is no moral difference between the whale Watson saves and the many billions of animals that supposedly “compassionate” people consume represent “purism” or “elitist.” Action, including ramming other ships, is fine where whales are concerned. But insisting on veganism as a moral imperative is not.

So, in the end, the question becomes: Does the chicken whose corpse is sold for $1.99 per pound matter as much morally as the whale Watson seeks to save?

We think she does.


If you are not vegan, please go vegan. Veganism is about nonviolence. First and foremost, it’s about nonviolence to other sentient beings. But it’s also about nonviolence to the earth and nonviolence to yourself.

If animals matter morally, veganism is not an option — it is a necessity. Anything that claims to be an animal rights movement must make clear that veganism is a moral imperative.

The World is Vegan! If you want it.

Learn more about veganism at

Gary L. Francione
Board of Governors Distinguished Professor, Rutgers University

Anna Charlton
Adjunct Professor of Law, Rutgers University

©2015 Gary L. Francione & Anna Charlton

Adventures in Moral Schizophrenia: Cecil the Lion

If you are upset about the killing of Cecil the Lion and you are not a vegan, then you are suffering from moral schizophrenia. There is no difference between “Cecil” and all of the animals you eat who do not have names but who value their lives as much as the lion valued his.

ScreenHunter_1005 Jul. 29 12.06

So please, if you think animals matter, go vegan. It is the only rational response to the recognition of the moral value of animals.


If you are not vegan, please go vegan. Veganism is about nonviolence. First and foremost, it’s about nonviolence to other sentient beings. But it’s also about nonviolence to the earth and nonviolence to yourself.

If animals matter morally, veganism is not an option–it is a necessity. Anything that claims to be an animal rights movement must make clear that veganism is a moral imperative.

The World is Vegan! If you want it.

Gary L. Francione
Board of Governors Distinguished Professor, Rutgers University

©2015 Gary L. Francione