The Blackest of All the Black Crimes
Slavery * Ethnic Cleansing * Nazi Human Experiments

The great Indian pacifist and political leader, Mahatma Gandhi, had a profound influence on my life and on the lives of many other peace-loving people. Through his writings, Gandhi was the first person to challenge me to justify eating meat. His ghost was the first person to whom I had to admit, through my writings, that I could not meet the challenge.

Tom Regan — The AV Magazine, Winter 1998

Anyone guided by the Gandhian principle of Ahimsa — anyone who aspires to live a life that “does the least harm” — in time, must put an end to consuming corpses. In addition to his vegetarian teachings, Gandhi was a staunch anti-vivisectionist, once referring to vivisection as “the blackest of all the black crimes.” When I first read these words, I didn’t give them much thought. It was only some years later that I stopped to ask what Gandhi might mean by this graphic statement and how he could possibly believe what he said.

As for what he means, the words leave little room for doubt. Consider the most evil things in the world. Slavery. Ethnic cleansing. Human experiments conducted by Nazi doctors. All these (and many more, alas) belong in the column headed “Worst Moral Crimes Humans Commit.” But the worst of the worst, according to Gandhi, is not any of those I have listed. The worst of all the worst crimes is: vivisection. I don’t think there is any question but that, when he describes vivisection as “the blackest of all the black crimes,” this is what Gandhi means.

Gandhi was not a foolish man. Far from it. But even people of wisdom sometimes believe foolish things. “Isn’t this a case in point?” I asked myself. I mean “how could any sane, sensible person think that vivi-section is a worse moral crime than slavery or the human experiments conducted by Nazi doctors?” I think I know how Gandhi would answer. First, he would explain that moral crimes belong in the “Worst Moral Crimes Humans Commit” column when committing them is perfectly legal. That’s part of what slavery, ethnic cleansing and vivisection have in common. Where they are practiced, there are no laws prohibiting them.

Still, there are important differences between these great evils. In the case of slavery, for example, while it was legal in most of the United States throughout most of the nation’s history, being a slave owner was not a profession people prepared for by attending colleges or universities, not something for which those who “showed real promise” were rewarded by receiving scholarships or fellowships. And vivisectors do compete for and some of them win, prestigious prizes and awards. How, then, can there be a worse moral crime than vivisection, enmeshed as the practice is in social institutions that not only permit, they train people to commit evil, then reward them for doing it?

I think this gets close to what Gandhi believes. I also think we can get closer by considering the suggestion that vivisectors are just like the Nazi doctors: both trained professionals, both performing morally evil acts that are perfectly legal. If this is true, vivisection is a very bad moral crime. Isn’t that enough? Why go as far as Gandhi and judge it to be the worst of the worst?

Though initially plausible, equating vivisectors and Nazi experimenters overlooks an important difference. Those Nazi doctors who performed experimenters on unconsenting, defenseless human beings, committed an evil no doubt. But unlike what is true of vivisectors, these doctors, after being trained to do good, chose to do evil. Not so in the case of vivisectors. In their case, vivisectors choose to do evil after they have been professionally trained to do it.

Is there a worse moral crime than that? It’s possible that not all anti-vivisectionists will agree in the answer they give. What’s certain is what Gandhi meant and why he believed what he did. Right about so much, is the Mahatma (the great-souled one) right about this, too? Now, there’s a question to ponder — the sort of food for thought even Gandhi would approve of.

Tom Regan is Professor of Philosophy and Head of the Department of Philosophy & Religion at North Carolina State University. President of The Culture & Animals Foundation, his many books include The Case for Animal Rights and The Thee Generation: Reflections on the Coming Revolution.

10 Super Foods You Should Eat

The Center for Science in the Public Interest’s Nutrition Action health letter provides the following list of “superfoods” we all should eat.

[Bay Area Vegetarian News — (415) 273-LIV-1]

1. Sweet Potatoes — Loaded with vitamin A, carotenoids, vitamin C and fiber. (However, the believers in Jainism don’t have to eat this one.)

2. Whole Grain Bread — Higher in fiber and about 12 vitamins and minerals than refined breads.

3. Broccoli — Lots of vitamin C, carotenoids and folic acid.

4. Strawberries — Excellent source of vitamin C.

5. Beans – Inexpensive, low in fat, rich in protein, iron, B-vitamins, folic acid and fiber. Garbanzo, pinto, black, navy, kidney, lentils…. your choice.

6. Cantaloup — A quarter melon provides most people’s entire daily requirement for vitamins A and C.

7. Spinach, Kale, Collards — High in vitamin C, carotenoids, calcium, iron and folic acid.

8. Oranges — Vitamin C, folic acid and fiber.

9. Oatmeal — Whole grain cereal that is fat free, sugar free and inexpensive.

10. Skim or Low-fat Milk — Excellent source of Calcium, vitamins and protein with little or no artery – clogging fat or cholesterol.

(We recommend the substitution of a rice, soy or nut milk which, as part of a balanced diet, would offer many of the same benefits without any cholesterol, animal proteins or toxins.) It is refreshingly pleasant to note that all above items are strictly vegetarian (in fact Jain and vegan too, after applying the recommendations)! — Editor

WHOSE SCIENCE IS IT ANYWAY?
A Feminist Exploration

We have to begin by asking: what exactly is this idea of “science” that undergirds the methodology of scientific experimentation?

by Carol J. Adams — The AV Magazine, Winter 1998

Lives begin in community. We learn through community. We exist interdependently. Our culture is structured so that learning and even living can occur almost “invisibly.” We can come to see ourselves as born into relationships rather than as atomistic, self-made individuals. This allows for an important shift in beliefs — no longer do we see humans as radically other than nonhuman life forms, no longer erecting a boundary between the presumably “self-made human” and the presumably “nature-made animals.”

Feelings matter. This rather obvious statement has one context in which it is greatly contested: the debate over experimentation on animals. In this context, feelings are thought to get in the way of science. Protesters who object to experimenting on animals for scientific knowledge are often accused of being sentimental — of letting feelings, rather than intellect — determine our positions. The underlying presumption in this charge is that doing science and being sentimental are exclusive of each other.

Feminist philosophy offers a way for us to think about why feelings matter and why doing science and being sentimental are not exclusive of each other. The insights of feminist philosophy into the construction of science as supposedly “objective” and “rational” equips us to critique the use of animals’ bodies for scientific knowledge in a new and exciting way. We have to begin by asking: What exactly is this idea of “science” that undergirds the methodology of scientific experimentation? Science, like the culture of which it is a part, is not a given, something delivered from a mountaintop; science is constructed. Who constructed “Science” as we know it? Whose science is it? Science is not value-free; we just believe it is.

Although it is valorized as the only appropriate way of “doing science,” the methodology of science arises from and has been limited by male experience of previous centuries. Animal experimentation is part of a patriarchal culture in which science, like masculinity, is “tough, rigorous, rational, impersonal, competitive and unemotional” as Sandra Harding describes it in The Science Question in Feminism.

Science “happens” through a subject-object relationship. Domination allows for the construction of “knowledge” based on the observations of the object by the subject. Gender notions infuse the ideas we hold about the way a scientist “discovers” knowledge, by which a “knower” studies an object — the “known.” The relationship that is dictated for this gaining of knowledge is one of distance and separation between the knower and the known. The subject who experiments is radically separate from the object upon whom she or he experiments.

Animal advocates not only face the overwhelming problem of power in this culture in which the tendency is to identify with the knower, the subject who is creating knowledge, rather than the “known,” the material being studied (who are often animals). We also face the problem that what science claims for itself — objectivity — yet a value-free science is not possible. Before we debate the efficacy of “animal models” we need to step back and ask “Whose science are we talking about?” Science arose from a Western patriarchal colonial culture. Attitudes about gender, race, class and nonhuman animals, have everything to do with the way “science” is conceptualized. It has been by and large Euro-American middle-class and upper-class men who have created scientific theorems, ethics and the ground rules for animal experimentation. They have created these out of the perspective by which they approach the world: as subjects surveying an object.

The notion of the objective scientist — one who is and should be a disinterested human observer — is central to modern science. Science has been created in the image of the “man of reason” — nonemotional, rational, separate from and over others. We might come to believe that one can transcend the body, personal and cultural history and thereby acquire “pure knowledge.” As a result, the scientific concept of objectivity remains unexamined and science is thought to be value-free. But knowledge can never be pure and the scientific concept of objectivity is itself a value — a value derived from the dominant perspective on reason, the body, feelings, gender and animals.

We have inherited a Western philosophic tradition that values differences rather than connections: men are different from (and above) women; humans are different from (and above) animals; whites are different from (and above) people of color; the mind is different from (and above) the body. Presumptions of human difference and superiority become intertwined with attitudes toward our own very animal-like bodies, which we must somehow disown to successfully use our minds. Discussions about morality, decision-making, feelings and science occur within this culture of differentiation.

The emphasis on differences between humans and animals established fierce definitions about what constitutes “humanness,” even though we humans are animals too and are not the only animals with social needs or group memories. Yet we are conceptualized as “not animals.” The qualities attributed to humans become the most cherished ones. So, for instance, reasoning is seen as a capacity possessed only by humans and it is valued over other activities. According to this tradition that values separation, the body is an untrustworthy source of knowledge. That which traditionally differentiated humans from animals — qualities such as reason and rationality — have been used to differentiate men from women, whites from people of color and the ruling class from the working class.

In earlier centuries, it was believed that men could transcend their bodies with their minds, but women, like animals, could not. While we have progressed from this theoretical equation of women with animals, we have not eliminated the mind/body dualism that undergirded it. We have simply removed the human species from this debate. Equated with man, reasoning is still seen as a process that occurs when one transcends the body. Suspicious attitudes toward the body are carried over to suspicious attitudes toward feelings: they are untrustworthy, not reliable, not what good science is. We end up with a science constructed after the Western philosophical idea of the “Man of the Reason.” As a result, gender notions are insinuated within the methodology of how a scientist “knows.” This has impoverished our understanding of reasoning, emotion and science. Within the philosophical framework of our culture, hostility exists toward the body and the feelings we experience through our body. This hostility deprives us of knowledge by viewing the body as something that stands in the way of knowledge rather than as an avenue for knowledge. And it excludes ways of learning, restricting how and what we can know. In fact, we can think through the body, not despite it.

The science that would arise from an acknowledgment that we are all situated bodies existing in relationship would begin at a radically different place. No one would object that we have feelings about what happens in scientific experiments; this would be a given. Of course, we all have feelings and, of course, appropriate emotions can contribute to knowledge! Once that became a given, perhaps there would be no debate about animal experimentation at all, because once we honor emotions and the bodies from which they arise, all bodies might be cherished. We would not see some bodies as objects for experimentation because we would know — know fully — that there are no objects and no objectivity.

Carol J. Adams is the author of The Sexual Politics of Meat. She explores the ideas of feminist philosophy and ecofeminism in her more recent Neither Man nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals.

website: www.triroc.com/caroladams/

Linda McCartney
ANIMAL PEOPLE, June 1998

Linda McCartney, 56, died of breast cancer on April 17 in Tucson, Arizona. The daughter of entertainment lawyer Lee Eastman, Linda had already become a noted rock-and-roll photographer, after a failed first marriage, when she met composer Paul McCartney of the Beatles at a London nightclub in 1967. They were married in March 1969. Linda and Yoko Ono, wife of the late John Lennon, were often blamed by fans and writers for the Beatles’ subsequent break-up. Drafted into Paul’s new band, Wings, as a keyboardist and backup singer, Linda endured further criticism for musical mediocrity. Learning to withstand public abuse served her well after they became ethical vegetarians in 1979, 12 years after Paul’s lifelong friend and fellow Beatle George Harrison.

“The moment of revelation came during a Sunday roast meal, when one of their four children commented on the contented way in which some baby lambs were grazing in the fields outside,” Jonathan Ashby of the New York Daily News reported. Said Paul, “We all suddenly felt quite dreadful when we realized that we were probably tucking into one of their relatives’ legs.”

They were joined in vegetarianism a few years later by Sean Lennon, son of John Lennon, who gave up meat at age 12.

By 1984 both Paul and Linda were prominently involved in animal rights activism. After Linda McCartney’s Home Cooking, 1989, sold 400,000 copies, Linda introduced a line of frozen dinners, “Linda’s Meatless Meals,” in 1991, and issued a second cookbook, Linda’s Kitchen, in 1996.

“If you go veggie,” Linda explained in the preface, “it means no animal dies for your plate. I’ve met a lot of people who say, ‘I’m almost veggie, but I still eat fish.’ To me that’s like being ‘almost pregnant’ — either you are or you aren’t. I know that for some people cutting out fish is the most difficult obstacle on the road to vegetarianism. But fish have feelings too, and anyone who has ever seen a fish hooked out of the water, jerking and gasping for breath, should realize that.”

Said Paul in his first public statement after her death, “The courage she showed to fight for her causes of vegetarianism and animal welfare was unbelievable. How many women can you think of who would singlehandedly take on opponents like the Meat & Livestock Commission, risk being laughed at, and yet succeed? All animals to her were like Disney characters, worthy of love and respect. The tribute she would have liked best would be for people to “go vegetarian,” as the public schools of Rome, Italy did in her honor on April 30, on request from school supervisor Fiorella Farinelli, 54, against outspoken opposition from both the meat industry and the locally powerful Communist Refounding Party.

Continued Paul, “Linda got into the food business for one reason only, to save animals from cruel treatment. When told a rival firm had copied one of her products, all she could say was, ‘Great. Now I can retire.’

In the end, she went quickly with very little discomfort, surrounded by her loved ones. The kids and I were there when she crossed over. They each were able to tell her how much they loved her. Finally I said to her, ‘You’re up on your Appaloosa stallion. It’s a fine spring day. We’re riding through the woods. The bluebells are out, and the sky is clear blue.’ I had barely gotten to the end of the sentence when she closed her eyes and gently slipped away.”

It’s probably no coincidence that national organics regulations — 10 years in the making — are finally set to be unveiled by the federal government at just the time the public has picked up on the pratfalls of GMOs.

Ironically, food GMOs might be contributing to the current boom in organics, since buying organic food is the only way consumers in a label-less land can be assured of avoiding GMOs. On the other hand, many people see the tactics of biotech corporations as nothing short of an insidious campaign to undermine the organics foothold.

“Within a few years, all traditional food crops will be contaminated with GMOs, and there’ll be no more pure food seeds to grow,” says Bob Canard, an organic farmer in Sonoma, Calif. “It’s a direct assault on me as an organic farmer.”

Genetic pollution of organic crops has been documented: An early 1999 organic corn-chip export to Europe was tested and found to contain genetically modified corn, a result of wayward pollen. The entire shipment was returned.

Whose fault, then, does genetic pollution become? Some biotech advocates say the onus is on organic farmers to keep genetically engineered (GE) pollen out. No easy feat, no matter who’s responsible. The Spanish government, meanwhile, has decided that companies producing or planting GMOs must contribute to a $100 million insurance fund intended to cover environmental accidents. Although it’s a nice gesture, money can’t reverse the problem.

For organic shoppers, particularly many vegetarians, soy is a favorite meat replacement — and soy is one of the more common GE crops. They can always eat organic soy, but what of pollen drift? GE crops, like other crops, are grown in the fields of this windswept world.

Perhaps worst of all is farmers’ widespread use of crops engineered with a natural soil bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt. For 40 years, organic growers have used Bt to effectively thwart acute insect infestations. When sprayed on crops, Bt dissipates in a few days, but it is not to be applied within three weeks of harvest. To fight the European corn borer, which costs U.S. farmers an estimated $1.2 billion in annual crop losses, biotech companies slip Bt into corn so that cells of the plant exude this insect toxin. Bt potatoes, commonly used to make fast-food french fries for many major food chains, are actually registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as pesticides, not foods.

Because the engineered Bt insecticide is as permanent as a corn kernel, researchers predict insects will develop immunity to Bt within five years. By then, it is surmised, biotech firms will simply unveil the next generation of genetically engineered bug spray — leaving organic farmers without one of their few safe, natural pest-management tools.

Guide to Healthy Eating — Questions & Answers Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) — 5100 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 404 —

Washington, D.C. 20016

A healthy person is a blessing on animals. Most sicknesses in western society are cured with drugs made from animals, and/or tested on animals, by the doctors who very likely have acquired their skills by experimenting on lab-animals. Under the circumstances, a compassionate vegetarian must learn how to remain healthy.

n I’ve heard that dairy products contain growth hormones and pesticides that might be harmful, but I’m worried about my two-year-old’s bones and teeth. Doesn’t he need milk to develop properly?

Milk and other dairy products are also loaded with saturated fat, cholesterol, and drug residues. About 30 percent of American children are overweight, largely because of their high fat intake. And there is evidence that milk consumption contributes to heart disease, ovarian cancer, and even cataracts in later life, and that colic in infants is caused by antibodies in milk.

Cow’s milk is not “a natural,” even for children. Greens, beans, nuts, and seeds will provide all the calcium and protein your son needs.

Product Testing on Animals

n I don’t like the idea of hurting animals to test products, but I’m nervous about using face creams, toothpastes, and things that could get in my eyes if they haven’t been tested. How can I be sure the products I use are safe?

Product tests on animal merely measure the damage substances inflict on animals’ eyes, skin, lungs, and other organs; they don’t ensure safety to consumers, and they aren’t used to develop antidotes for harmful reactions. Emergency room physicians, and attorneys, can testify that thousands of people each year are injured by animal-tested products.

Many companies that don’t use animal tests do test their products, of course, using human skin patch tests, cloned human skin, and new technologies that are more accurate than animal tests. Or they simply use time tested ingredients that are known to be safe.

Salmonella and Cantaloupe

n I recently read about a number of people becoming sick with salmonella poisoning as a result of eating cantaloupe. I knew that salmonella is a problem in foods like potato salad, chicken and eggs. Is it true that fruit is a source of salmonella poisoning, too?

While salmonella bacteria usually are found in animal products, they can also grow on other foods if the food is contaminated with this bacteria. The outbreak of infection that you are referring to occurred when people ate cantaloupe that was sitting out at a salad bar. Presumably, the cantaloupe had been out for some time. The cantaloupe at your grocer is not a source of concern.

This situation points to the importance of safe handling of all foods — that is using clean utensils and cutting boards in preparation and keeping foods at an appropriate temperature. Generally speaking, however, fruits that are kept refrigerated after they are cut open should be safe. In terms of food poisoning, fruits and other low-protein items are generally considered to be safe. Poultry, eggs, cream-based dishes, and dairy products are the leading causes of salmonella poisoning.

Protein for Athletes

n I have been a vegetarian for three years and have always enjoyed good health. However, I began lifting weights recently. My program is fairly rigorous at times, and I’m worried about getting enough of the right kinds of protein now that my muscles are being worked so strenuously and are bigger. Are there special recommendations for vegetarian athletes?

First and foremost, exercising muscle requires extra calories. It takes about 2,500 additional calories to create one pound of muscle. Body builders also require more protein than non-exercising individuals — perhaps as much as 50 percent more. However, meeting protein needs is easy — even for athletes. As long as you meet your increased calorie needs by eating more healthy foods such as whole grains, legumes, and vegetables, you will automatically meet your increased protein needs.

Since the average American consumes twice as much protein as he or she needs, most non-exercising individuals actually end up consuming more protein than even an athlete requires! For athletes, as for all people, there is no need to follow special rules for combining foods and no advantage to using amino acid supplements.

Peanut Butter

n I am a sixteen-year-old who has been a lacto-ovo vegetarian for three years. Recently I eliminated dairy foods and eggs from my diet. I am concerned about nuts and seeds in my diet. I eat a fair amount of peanut butter and other nuts. But I’ve read that they are high in fat. I also heard that peanuts can cause cancer. Should I avoid peanuts and other nuts?

Actually, peanuts aren’t even nuts. Because they grow in a pod, they are classified as legumes. But because they are nutritionally similar to nuts — especially in their fat content — they have earned an honorary position among that food group.

There has been some concern about the fact that peanuts can be host to a mold called aflatoxin. Aflatoxin, which causes liver cancer, is the most potent carcinogen known. In the United States, peanuts are inspected for aflatoxin and small amounts are frequently found in peanut butter. Since liver cancer is relatively rare in this country, aflatoxin is apparently not a serious public health problem. In countries where food inspection is poor and peanuts are central to the diet, aflatoxin may be more of a concern.

Nuts and seeds are the only groups of plant foods that are high in fat. Their fat is mostly poly- and mono- unsaturated. (Coconut is the rare exception, being high in saturated fat.) Regardless of the type of fat, high fat intakes are associated with risk of colon cancer, breast cancer, and obesity. On the other hand, nuts and seeds are powerhouses of nutrition. They are rich in fiber, protein, B-vitamins, iron, copper, zinc, and in some cases, calcium. So with nuts and seeds in the diet, it is somewhat of a balancing act. Including one or two servings of these foods in your diet every day will help you to meet the increased calorie and nutrient needs of adolescence. But balance these foods with generous servings of whole grains, vegetables, beans, and fruits. As long as you aren’t loading up on fatty snack foods like chips and sweets, your meat and dairy-free diet is probably low in fat. That means that there is a place for small amounts of nutrient-rich nuts and seeds in your meal planning.

Margarine and Butter

n I have elevated blood cholesterol levels and have been making changes in my diet to lower my fat intake. One of these changes includes using margarine on my food instead of butter. However, now I have heard that margarine contains fats that may actually raise blood cholesterol. Would it be a better idea to use butter after all?

Actually the best idea is to use neither, since both butter and margarine are equally high in fat. Butter is predominantly made up of saturated fat, while margarine contains a mix of polyunsaturated, monounsaturated, and saturated fats. Nutritionists usually consider margarine to be a wise choice over butter since it helps to lower intake of saturated fat, although it does not help to lower total fat intake at all.

Margarine is made from liquid vegetable oils that have been hydrogenated. The addition of hydrogen turns a liquid oil into a solid fat — and also increases the amount of saturated fat in a product. Scientists have known for some time that hydrogenation also produces fats known as “trans fatty acids.” This means that the structure of the fat molecule is rearranged slightly so that it looks a little different from naturally occurring saturated fats. A Dutch study suggested that consumption of these trans fatty acids may raise levels of LDL-cholesterol (that’s the “bad” cholesterol) and lower levels of HDL-cholesterol (or “good” cholesterol) in your bloodstream. They concluded that there is no advantage to using margarine over more saturated fats like butter. One problem with the study, however, was that the subjects consumed diets that were much higher in trans-fatty acids than most Americans consume. There are a number of margarines on the market that are lower in trans-fatty acids than the product used in the study.

An important consideration is that about 75 percent of the trans-fatty acids consumed by Americans come, not from margarine, but from commercial baked goods, snack foods, and fast foods. Eliminating these foods from your diet will make the most significant dent in your intake of trans-fatty acids.

Finally, while vegetable fats are a better choice in your diet than animal fats, the key to healthful eating is to reduce all fats. Build your diet around whole grains, beans, vegetables, and fruits. Try fruit spreads on breads instead of fats. And on the rare occasions when you cook with added fats, use vegetable oils such as olive oil.

Inside the Turkey Butchery
Behind the Scenes of a Festivity
Laura A. Moretti — Farm Sanctuary News, Fall 1998
P.O. Box 150 * Watkins Glen, NY 14891-0150 * 1-607-583-2225 * www.farmsanctuary.org

If I had been looking for home-grown peaches or rolled oats, I would have had the help of the entire community, but finding a turkey farm was another matter. On a trip from fellow activists, I learned there was one right in the heart of northern California’s picturesque wine country — but no one, not even activists, could tell me exactly where.

“Turkey farm?” the woman behind a deli counter mused. “Just what is a turkey farm?”

“A place where turkeys are grown for, like, Thanksgiving,” I told her.

I could see the flash in her eyes: turkeys came from the supermarket — and those could be found anywhere, so what was my complaint?

The animal feed supply stores didn’t help much, either, but I’m certain it was because they didn’t want to. The process of animal rearing is a well-kept secret — and for good reason. If most Americans knew how the animals were treated and killed to adorn their dining tables, they’d have second thoughts about eating them — and that isn’t good for an industry that makes its billions off the bodies of slaughtered animals.

Half a billion turkeys are raised in the United States each year. They’re killed at the rate of 1.4 million birds a day, 58,000 an hour, nearly 1,000 per minute, 16 a second — and yet I couldn’t find a live one anywhere in sight. And it wasn’t for lack of trying.

I drove miles and miles of scenic and not-so-scenic back roads. I crept up the driveways of many a ranch. I talked to numerous grain and fruit and grape farmers. I peeked into seemingly abandoned warehouses. But I couldn’t find even a feather.

They say a watched pot never boils. I had just given up looking when the birds, it seemed, flocked to me. On a return road trip from Calistoga to Santa Rosa — and on a highway, mind you, that I frequently traveled — I was enjoying the late night drive, the way the moonlight cast black shadows across the asphalt, when the smell of putrefying flesh suddenly invaded my nostrils.

My first thought was I had just passed road kill. Having lived in the northeast where such odors are common because road kill is so common, and having lived in La Paz, Bolivia, where the rotting carcasses of dogs and livestock could be found all along the river banks and roadways, I knew that smell all too well. It was the overpowering smell of something dead. It’s not like the awful odor of rotting cantaloup. Or moldy kidney beans. It’s the unmistakable smell of death and decay.

This time it didn’t pass. It stayed with me on that lone country road around every bend and dip — for miles. It was the strangest thing because I was the only one on the highway. I was driving through pristine wilderness. Had I happened upon road kill, I would have left the odor with the carcass on that black, moonlit asphalt behind me. Perhaps, then, I had picked up something on the tries. The smell was strong, strong enough for me to believe it would be in my clothes and in my hair until I bathed — the way the smell of blood in a slaughterhouse has often stayed with me.

It’s a steep drop into the Santa Rosa valley from Calistoga Road. Where it leveled is where the answer lay. Just pulling off the road ahead of me into a gravel parkway, was a huge livestock truck — packed full of white, living turkeys, stacked like dead sardines in a tin can, four-levels high in putrid-smelling crates, on their way to slaughter.

I wasn’t prepared for the emotion I felt. The truck had been ahead of me all along, unseen by the bends in the highway. To see so many birds, trucked in ways most Americans would outlaw if they were parakeets or macaws, wreaking of death even before they had died, broke my heart.

The turkey farm on Calistoga Road was nearly empty when I arrived there later that week. Its product had been sent to market. Harvested — like so much corn. But, unlike grain farms, I wasn’t welcome at this one. What the turkey farmers — and the pig and cow and chicken farmers — don’t want you to know is that animal agriculture is a cruel and bloody business, and its cruelties begin long before the animals are born or hatched.

Genetically altered, turkeys, for example, are forced to grow twice as fast and twice as large as any wild turkey. They are so breast-heavy, in fact, they cannot fly. They can’t even mate. Every neatly packaged turkey in America’s supermarkets was brought into this world by grown men who have milked male turkeys for their semen and wrestled turkey hens in order to open their legs and their vents to inseminate them.

Turkeys have the ends of their beaks and their toes clipped — without anesthesia — in order to prevent them from injuring each other in the tightly packed warehouses in which they are raised. Inside these factories, packed by the hundreds with no more than three square feet per bird, they die from heat prostration, infectious disease, and cancer. Turkeys also suffer from heart disease — caused by their bodies trying to keep pace with their excessive rate of growth. They die, often and simply, from heart attacks.

After being trucked to slaughter, turkeys are pulled from the creates into which they’ve been crammed for transport, and hung upside down by their legs onto a rotating rail. Their heads are submerged in an electrified water bath which immobilizes them for the killing blade. They can still feel pain and many of them emerge from stunning fully conscious. If the blade misses killing them, the birds are also fully conscious when they are submerged in scalding, boiling water. The industry calls these birds “red skins” — and it happens to millions of them because turkeys are not federally protected.

The ironic part is that, after all this cruelty and killing, death and dying, Americans have symbolized the carcass of this domestically mutilated and mutated bird with a national day of gratitude.

Get in the Holiday Spirit!
Party Till The Turkeys Come Home

Help your local animal rights group or vegetarian society host a vegetarian Thanksgiving dinner. Whether it’s potluck or catered, you’re sure to make vegetarian advocates happy for the holidays (and educate their friends and family too!). Call or write us for our Vegetarian Thanksgiving Resource brochure with mail-order videos, books, photographs, literature, recipes, and other materials to help you provide “food for thought” for the Thanksgiving holiday.

And remember… `tis the season for holiday dinner parties! So don’t let the holidays go by without showing your friends and family how delicious and nutritious Thanksgiving dinner can be.

Turkeys in the News

Let your local newspapers know that you are starting a new Thanksgiving tradition by adopting a turkey! Call your paper, ask for the features editor, and then inform him or her that you have a unique Thanksgiving story — you’re participating in a national ADOPT-A-TURKEY Project because you wanted to save a turkey, rather than serve a turkey this year!

Of course, it helps to have a photograph of your adopted turkey, and we can also provide sample press releases and information literature. Our ADOPT-A-TURKEY Project Coordinator is happy to help — just call (607) 583-2225, ext. 69.

And don’t forget to write a letter to the editor too! It’s a great way to educate people about the compelling health, environmental, and ethical reasons to have a vegetarian Thanksgiving dinner. Feel free to write or call us for a sample Thanksgiving theme “letter to the editor.”

Fields of Dreams
by Laurel Kallenbach (A health and travel writer from Boulder, CO)
Will the USDA’s new organic rules prove a blessing … or open a Pandora’s box?

The next few months could herald a new era for people who care about the purity of their food and the environment. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has finalized and approved strong national organic standards that will help grocery shoppers all across the country determine the extent to which their food is pesticide free. Yet, while supporters of the organic movement are celebrating, a few are already wondering what problems will come of the standards. By passing these strict rules, has the USDA opened a Pandora’s box? In addition to releasing wonderful possibilities and ushering in what will surely be a Golden Age of organics, some unpleasant problems may also be unleashed.

Americans from Miami to Anchorage can depend on standardized definitions of organic food once the USDA’s national organic standards are in effect — by the end of next year. The organic labels will clearly state what percentage organic ingredients a product contains (see “Labeling Guidelines,” page 18). In addition, the USDA will prevent foods from being labeled as organic if they contain ingredients that have been genetically engineered, irradiated or produced using sewage sludge. “These standards provide a clear set of labeling that gives consumers the ability to make choices about the products they buy,” says Katherine DiMatteo, executive director of the Organic Trade Association.

Thanks to thousands of concerned consumers, we have this latest version of national organic standards, which have been in the formative stages for a decade. The 1997 version of the USDA-proposed standards would have allowed genetically modified organisms (GMOs), irradiated and sewage sludge-treated foods to be labeled organic, but public outcry stopped the agency in its tracks. More than 275,000 people wrote in, complaining about the proposal. “We turned the USDA around on its head,” says Bob Scowcroft, executive director of the Organic Farming Research Foundation.

“Consumers get a good, protective labeling and production standard from this rule,” says DiMatteo. “Passage of the regulations created a more secure marketplace for organics in general.” She anticipates that over a period of years, as demand for and production of organic food escalates, grocery prices will go down. “As more products become available and we establish better distribution systems and transportation, retailers won’t have to ask higher prices for organics because they have limited supply,” she says.

Opening Pandora’s Box

While those in the organic community generally agree these new organic guidelines are good news for the consumer, some sticking points remain, primarily surrounding issues of contamination of organic crops caused by drifting pesticides, herbicides and GMOs.

One of the biggest gaps in the mostly positive national organic rules is the lack of direction in cases of contaminated organic crops. “We need better guidelines about what happens if organic producers lose income or crops due to circumstances beyond their control, such as unwanted drift from pesticides, herbicides or genetically engineered crops,” says DiMatteo. When pollen from a genetically engineered plant is deposited on an organic crop via wind or insects, she explains, that gene may be incorporated into the product, possibly rendering it unfit to be labeled organic.

“How do you test the wind for pollen? How do you test insects carrying pollen?” asks Scowcroft. “If there’s drift that ruins an organic crop, organic farmers or consumers shouldn’t be penalized. They may have to destroy their crop, but the government should compensate them. In cases of genetic drift, the owners of the patented gene should be liable for keeping their product out of our marketplace. We don’t want that burden to be on the backs of family farmers or organic consumers. It’s not their responsibility to deal with technology run amok on environmentally clean farms,” he says.

A dearth of organic research and resources is another issue raised. “We know so little about the organic market, crop rotation, nonchemical weed control or how to develop an organic farm business plan,” Scowcroft says. “We need appropriations to get organic farmers their fair share of research and marketing dollars.”

Cummins agrees, pointing to monetary discrimination against organic farmers. “Last year the USDA gave $25 billion to conventional agribusiness, but it’s proposing putting only $5 million or $6 million into organic businesses. That’s absurd.” He feels government has pigeonholed the organic industry as a small niche market that won’t threaten business as usual. “My dream is that organic will become the dominant form of agriculture,” he says. He hopes for the day when organic food is served in schools and hospitals. “When you send your kids off to school to eat lunch, they’re getting the lowest grade, most contaminated food there is,” he says. “The Berkeley, Calif., school district is the only one in the nation to include organic food in its school-lunch program.”

The Plight of the Organic Farmer

Though national standards will likely increase public awareness of organics and demand for organically grown produce, meat and dairy products, organic farmers still have a tough row to hoe. It’s a positive sign that giant agriculture businesses are buying organic companies and starting their own organic divisions, resulting in increased organic acreage nationwide. Yet, small farmers need help to transition from conventional to organic agriculture. “If the government was serious about helping farmers go organic, certification fees would be free,” says Cummins. “Most organic farmers gross less than $30,000 a year, so a bunch of fees is a hardship. We think that organic certification — since it benefits all of society — should be free, and organic farmers should be subsidized.”

Now is the time to stand by small organic farmers. “Every day, your dollars support the type and size of agricultural production you believe in,” DiMatteo says. We must do our part by buying locally grown organic food, shopping at farmer’s markets and farm stands, asking retailers to carry more local organic products year-round, buying seasonally and getting to know local farmers. “If a product is organic, it helps the environment and contributes to better health for people and animals, too,” she says.

Public confidence in the new organic standards must not lead to complacency. “Consumers shouldn’t relax, because the problem isn’t completely solved,” says Scowcroft. He suggests continuing to support organic foods and farmers in this country, even after the USDA organic label appears on your can of pinto beans or package of pasta. “Push yourself to buy more organically grown foods,” he says. “Even with national certification, the organic production system is still fragile. And, if issues like genetic or chemical drift concern you, put pen to paper and write your legislators and the Secretary of Agriculture, demanding more resources for organic agriculture.”

Despite some of the problems still facing organics in this country, Scowcroft applauds national organic standards and remains optimistic about the future. “Agriculture is at an incredible crossroads right now,” he says. “We have every opportunity to make America a fully organic nation 20 years from now.”

EVOLUTION A Higher Vision of the Human Species

By Liam Brophy, Ph.D. — American Anti Vivisection Society
(The AV Magazine, January 1994)

We have it on the highest authority that evolution is still an on-going process. Here, in elegant prose, are the final words of Darwin’s masterpiece, On the Origin of Species, first published in 1859: “There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.” Fearing that some of his views would shock the religious feelings of some, he waited until 1871 to publish his conclusions concerning our species in The Descent of Man.

The thought that evolution is still at work prompted a contemporary naturalist to pose the question: if evolution produced offshoots of Super Man, would they be justified in using us lesser mortals as laboratory animals? Left to the normal and leisurely processes of nature it has taken our species some two million years to get where we are. But now, for the first time in our long history, humankind is able, with the help of science, to take evolution into its own hands, and decide its direction and rate of development. It is a dizzying and daunting prospect.

The earliest traces we have of our species were found in the savanna country of North Kenya and in southwest Ethiopia near Lake Turkana. Other human remains of two million years vintage have been found at Taung, just south of the equator. They are distinguished from the remains of other hominids by the position of the foramen magnum, the hole in the skull through which the spinal cord contacts the brain. This is positioned in an upright position in humans, while in apes and monkeys the aperture is positioned to allow the head to hang forward. There were other clues to distinguish humans from other hominids — small square teeth unlike those of fighting canines such as apes and the proximity of the remains of primitive flint tools to those distant members of our kind to whom was given the formidable name, Zinjanthropus Homo Habilis.

It is believed that humankind lived up in the trees with other swinging hominids until a serious drought crossed Africa. Lakes shrank and forests were compelled to retreat, and humans were forced from their perch to drop down on the savannas.

From the time that our very remote ancestors parted company with the lemurs and other tree-faring companions, they spread out from the open plains of East Africa, increased and multiplied, and filled all the earth.

W hen the Romans invented the census of population at the very beginning of the Christian era, as we know from the Bethlehem story, the world population registered between 300 and 400 million people. By the year 1700 it had risen to some 500 million. It accelerated to reach some two billion in our time according to World Health Organization statistics. By the year 2000 it is estimated the number will reach five billion. The rapid increase from near constancy for almost two thousand years to a multiplication by ten in three centuries shows an astounding increase in our species unmatched by our fellow creatures, thereby steadily diminishing their living space and food resources. Meanwhile evolution has been — is still — at work, and it is strange that we speak so persistently of past evolution, and so little of what is going on all the while.

This is perhaps understandable seeing that humankind’s span and field of observation is so brief in comparison with the hundreds of million years during which evolution has been at work. Humankind must be considered in the light of evolution as the outcome of an age-long process since it is in humans that nature finds its chief significance. “He is the agent of the evolutionary process on this planet,” says Sir Julian Huxley. “This is so whether he knows it or not, whether he wants it or not; but will he do the job better if he does know it and does consciously want to do it?”

In writing of biology and human progress another eminent naturalist, Arthur Thomas, writes: “Part of the momentum of Organic Evolution works in Man today, and while we always hope that the ape and tiger may die within us, we are in line with our best endeavors.” Maybe this is what the poet had in mind when he wrote of man toiling upward, working out the beast.

A less pejorative meaning can be attached to the term “speciesism” if we take it to mean that the human is the dominant species of our world, still evolving through the constant development of his or her superior brain and mind. Humans can improve the lot of all living things, and stave off the catastrophe which their active brains have devised. We are the clever keepers of our brothers and sisters through land, sea and sky. So while pessimists talk of the dethronement of our species, and refer to it as a random twig on the tree of life, “an item of history, not an embodiment of general principles,” the more intelligent teachers of our time are urging us to take up humankind’s burden through the maximum use of mind and brain. Thinkers like Koestler and Attenborough are not quite so optimistic, but we prefer to believe the scientists who hold that:

The best is yet to be, The last of life, for which the first was made: Our times are in His hand

Who said “A whole I planned…”

T hat eminent French naturalist and palaeontologist, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, shared with Julian Huxley an enthusiasm for evolutionary studies, and an intuitive sense of direction toward a higher vision of our species — the welfare of all creation. They agree with Nietzsche’s view that humankind is unfinished and must be surpassed or completed. The French thinker showed what steps he considered necessary in order for us to take our evolution into our own hands. These are set forth with Gallic clarity in his fine study, The Phenomenon of Man (Fontana Books), to which Huxley contributed an enthusiastic introduction. In is not an easy book to peruse because of the vastness of the world prospect it opens before us, and because the author had to coin words and phrases at times to describe the new world to be brought about by intensified human awareness, heightened intelligence and love for all life. It should be read along with the author’s kindred book, The Future of man, and Bergson’s Evolution Creatrice.

We are convinced that the inspiring evolutionary process in humankind will progress in proportion to the diminishment of cruelty in mind and heart, and believe that all who promote the cause of kindness to animals are helping human evolution. We are invited to participate in this, the highest form of Speciesism.

Whatever living beings there may be without exception, weak or strong, long, large, middling, short, subtle, or gross, visible or invisible, living near or far, born or coming to birth — May all beings have happy minds! Let no one deceive another nor despise anyone anywhere. Neither in anger nor ill will should anyone wish harm to another. As a mother would risk her own life to protect her only child, even so towards all living beings one should cultivate aboundless heart. One should cultivate for all the world a heart of boundless kindness, above, below, and across, unobstructed, without hate or enmity.  Whether standing, walking, or sitting, lying down or whenever awake, he should develop this mindfulness; this is called divinely dwelling here.

Circus
K. Sowmya — Courtesy : The Times of India
 

“But when we play the fool, how wide the theatre expands!

Beside, How long the audience sits before us! How many prompters! What a chorus!”

Seven year old Nita clapped her hands in delight as the newly captured, two month old, trapped chimpanzee relentlessly tried in vain to escape from the strong iron cage that was now supposed to be its home.

The agonising fact is that little Nita is not the only one who finds pleasure in pain. Most of us, young and old alike, relish watching animals in captivity. This being so, the question arises whether we are any more civilised than our barbarous ancestors? Is watching a circus any less savage than enjoying a cockfight? The answer in both cases is no.

The animals in the circus are put through untold brutality while undergoing training. Merciless torture techniques are applied in order to get a dog to jump at the right time, or on an elephant to kick the ball at the correct place. Is it absolutely necessary to put them through such ruthlessness just for our pleasure?

One of our most prized possessions is freedom. Countless wars have been lost and won just to attain freedom. But do we really respect freedom? If we do, then why do we keep animals in bondage (zoos)? We see how pretty a deer looks or how beautiful a tiger’s coat seems, but we never see the agony it experiences or the pain it feels on being alienated from its natural environment.

Man, in spite of conquering the moon, finding cures for some incurable diseases and inventing machines that are capable of solving problems within seconds, has morally changed very little. Thanks to sophisticated technology, life has become a bed of roses for us but we have forgotten the less fortunate — the tormented animals.

The modern idiot box is often subjected to the contempt of parents. These same parents then find great bliss in taking their children to the circus. But the idiot box does not torture helpless, innocent animals. In fact, it can educate, if selectively viewed.

Computers, one of the most brilliant inventions of man, has probably helped animals more than it has helped us. Modern technology has made going to the zoo obsolete. Today, we can sit in the comfort of our homes and enjoy the beauty of nature as realistically as if we were actually in the great outdoors.

Man has always taken great pride in claiming to be the most intelligent creature on earth. But now, we need to prove to ourselves that we are not sadists, but humanists. We don’t need circuses and zoos.

Must-Eat Organic Foods
Francine Stephens and Betsy Lydon — Mothers & Others for a Livable Planet

Even if you’re not obsessed with healthy eating, it makes sense to avoid foods treated with pesticides and chemical fertilizers. The National Academy of Sciences reported in 1993 that federal pesticide standards provide too little health protection for children and infants. Citing this report, the EPA’s 1997 agenda sought to establish new child-specific standards. “Certified Organic” already applies the strictest standards, producing food without synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. There is also “Integrated Pest Management (IPM),” which restricts pesticide use, and local, in-season food, which is less likely to have been treated with post-harvest pesticides. So, where to start? Here are the 10 most important foods to start buying organic:

1. BABY FOOD In 1995, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) tested eight baby foods made by industry leaders Gerber, Heinz and Beech-Nut. Some 16 pesticides were found in more than half of the samples. Organic baby foods include Earth’s Best, Well-Fed Baby, and Gerber’s Tender Harvest, and you can make your own by cooking and pureeing organic food.

2. RICE Because rice allergies are practically nonexistent, this cereal grass is a primary ingredient in baby foods. But pesticide use on rice fields in California’s Sacramento River Valley, one major growing region, has been so heavy that it has contaminated groundwater.

3. STRAWBERRIES Strawberries are the single most pesticide-contaminated fruit or vegetable in the U.S., according to a 1995 EWG study. No surprise, in a crop that receives a dose up to 500 pounds of pesticides per acre. Strawberries and other produce bought out-of-season are the most likely to have been imported, possibly from a country with less-stringent pesticide regulations.

4. CEREAL The USDA recommends six to 11 servings of grains a day. But, in 1994, the FDA found illegal pesticide residues in a year’s worth of General Mills’ Cheerios oat-based cereal. And in 1996, the FDA found residues from at least one pesticide in 91% of wheat samples tested. Try a healthy variety of organic offerings: oats, wheat, millet, quinoa, barley, couscous, amaranth and spelt.

5. MILK Milk comprises nearly a quarter of the non-nursing infant’s diet, but many dairies inject their cows with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), a genetically engineered hormone used to boost milk production. Organic milk dairies don’t use hormones or antibiotics.

6. CORN Processed foods made with corn — cornbread, chips and popcorn — were among the top 15 foods likely to expose children to an unsafe dose of organophosphate (OP) pesticide residues, according to a 1998 report of EWG. Organic versions can readily be found.

7. BANANAS Often the first fruit offered to babies, bananas are produced using benomyl (linked to birth defects) and chlorpyrifos (a neurotoxin). In Costa Rica, a major exporter, only 5 percent of farmland grows bananas, but they account for 35% of the country’s pesticide consumption.

8. GREEN BEANS In 1992-93, contamination with pesticides illegal in the U.S. was found in 7.4% of green beans imported from Mexico. EWG’s tests found three pesticides in conventional green bean baby food samples.

9. PEACHES A recent Food & Drug Administration study found that 5% of the peach crop was contaminated. Peaches lead the EWG’s list of foods likely to contain unsafe OP exposures.

10. APPLES Apples rank second on the EWG list for OP residues, and baby food apple juice also made the top 15. Organic and IPM alternatives can be found in some supermarkets. Mothers & Others introduced its “CORE Values Northeast” label in 1996, identifying apples grown regionally by growers practicing biointensive IPM. “CORE Values” was recognized by the USDA SARE Program as an “innovative, interesting and impactful” sustainable agriculture project.

You may also want to seek out organic nectarines, grapes and raisins, and kiwi fruit, all of which made EWG’s “least wanted” list. Contact EWG at 202-667-6982, or www.ewg.org.

Contact: Mothers & Others for a Livable Planet, 40 West 20th St., New York, NY 10011; 1-888-ECO-INFO; or www.mothers.org.