Autism Advocate Temple Grandin Fought for Humane Animal Slaughter
This month, HBO is premiering an original biopic starring Claire Danes about an extraordinary person, Dr. Temple Grandin. As a young woman, Grandin struggled with the isolating challenges of autism at a time when this disorder was almost a total mystery. Today she is one of the best-known advocates for autism education.
But I applaud Dr. Grandin for another reason, one that has angered some people who work in animal protection: I admire her work in the field of humane animal slaughter. PETA would prefer, of course, that no animals be killed for food, but we won't ignore the horrors of factory farms and slaughterhouses just because we wish that they didn't exist.
Throughout her career as an animal-science professor at Colorado State University and a consultant to the American Meat Institute, Grandin has worked to improve animal-handling systems at slaughterhouses—markedly decreasing, although never able to stop completely, the amount of fear and pain that animals experience.
In 2006, she described to National Public Radio her experience watching cattle get vaccinated at feedlots during the 1970s. Some of the animals would just walk into the holding chutes, she said, while others refused. So Grandin did what no one else had bothered to do before: She went into the chutes herself. As she wrote in an essay for my book One Can Make a Difference, "(I)t seemed obvious to me to get down into the chute and see what the cattle were seeing." She realized that visual details such as shadows, a reflection off a truck's bumper, or people standing up ahead were causing the animals to be fearful.
These insights led her to design cattle-restraining systems that are now used by half the meat plants in North America. "(P)eople just wanted to get out there and yell and scream and push and shove," Grandin told NPR, rather than "remove the things that the cattle were afraid of."
This may seem like a small victory—the cows are still going to be killed, after all—but until the day that we get animals off the dinner plate altogether, is it too much to ask that we do everything we can to reduce the fear and suffering that they experience in the slaughterhouse?
PETA's campaigns against the cruel practices of fast-food chains and against the use of intensive confinement systems that do not even allow animals enough room to stand up, turn around, or extend their limbs have improved the living and dying conditions for millions of animals. As the industries change and evolve, these improvements will apply to billions of animals every year.
The vast majority of people, if they care about animals—and consumer surveys show that they do—support such incremental changes, even if the increments are far from wholly satisfactory to the animals who would rather not be caged at all or hung upside down and killed. In November 2008, for example, California voters made history by approving a ballot measure to ban the use of veal crates, gestation crates, and battery cages on factory farms. Last year, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed a landmark bill that will phase out these same cruel devices in her state as well.
I completely understand the appeal of battle cries such as "Not bigger cages—empty cages!" and I encourage every kind soul who shares this sentiment to make a difference by going vegan. But, as Dr. Grandin has shown us, giving a little comfort and relief to animals who will be in those cages their whole lives is worth fighting for, even as some of us are demanding that those cages be emptied.
Posted by Ingrid E. Newkirk
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Temple Grandin is extroidinary. The HBO movie depicting her was performed exquitely by all the actors. I noticed that the relief apparatus that she used to help her calm down looked like the the massage chairs that are used now. Who came up with the design for the massage chair first?
Just my gut opinion, without having met Temple and without the benefit of extensive background exposure to these issues:
I want to know exactly, precisely how being autistic makes her more able to be a spokesperson for animals .
What exactly makes her opinion worth so much over yours or mine? I have read parts of her home page, and yes, it is odd, stream-of-consciousness writing, where she mentions for example the thousands of images that crowd her head. OK. But how does that mean she can claim to get inside the mind of animals and be their unelected spokeswoman.
Seems to me like an 'untouchable' who does society 's dirty work , and society applauds (because nobody else wants to do that ugly job ). Traditional Buddhists consider butchers to be untouchables, by the way.
The meat industry could have introduced dozens of ways to improve on slaughterhouse horrors any time the wanted to. But they didn't. So, to cover themselves, they proclaimed that what they needed an oracle, a shaman of sorts, a Joan of Arc, to show the way. You mean, for example, they didn't think of preventing animals from seeing that they were being herded directly toward their deaths ? I mean REALLY. Only Temple with her amazing skills was able to think of that.
Do your own research , spend a couple hours reading Temple's home page or book in her own words. I could be wrong on this.
I understand that we can't stop the wholesale slaughter of animals, but I don't think we should reward anything that makes the process of killing them easier to rationalize, to be removed from, to write off as "in good hands".
What next? Implants with sensors an micro-explosives placed into the foreheads of livestock shortly after birth. Then, the animals are managed and tracked by computers , which know their age, sex , habits, their temperatures, how much the move around, where they are at a given moment, etc... and, at the optimal time for slaughter, 'BAM', the computer detonates an explosive in the animal's head, kills it "humanely", because the animal never even had a clue its head was about to explode (maybe it was even asleep at the time, that would be nice), and then sends a mechanized robotic arm to collect the carcass and deliver it to the rendering room. A perfect, humane, "lights out" slaughter house ?
That is the direction Temple seems to champion. If you've seen modern automobile assembly plants with robots, you know this is not that far-fetched.
Temple has no problem with killing animals so long as they don't know it is about to happen, is what it boils down to, to me.
Her influence will promote increasing the numbers killed while decreasing the associated "guilt" and " cost ".
Newkirk advocates less torture instead of no torture. That's like someone saying he'll hack off one of your legs instead of two. Is that the sort of improvement we should settle for? PETA improving dying conditions is nothing to brag about either.
"Humane murder " is a slick myth designed by the meat industry and its accomplices (who should be advocating only for the animals ) to gain tremendous profits. It's a feel-good campaign to get omnivores to calmly enter the chute leading down into a fairy tale world where they can eat "happy meat" with a clean conscience. Or rather, no conscience.
Boycotting meat, dairy, and eggs works. Every meal we eat daily, we choose to participate in gruesome mass murder or to refuse to be a part of that grave injustice.
Check out "Invasion of the Movement Snatchers" ( http://www.satyamag.com/oct06/laveck.html ) to unravel the meat industry's tactics to get activists--and us--to compromise and call off effective boycotts. See the slide shows about "happy cows" and "free-range chickens": http://humanemyth.org / .
How tough could Grandin's "fight" for "humane slaughter" have been when much of the meat industry completely supports and adores her? Sorry, those of us who think for ourselves just don't appreciate this pseudo-rebel nonsense and the illusion of progress for the animals.
We can bet that twenty years from now, without boycotting, the animals will still be exploited and murdered , as "reform" is delayed forever--an old tobacco industry ploy that keeps business operating as usual.
Forget PETA. Forget Grandin. We each have complete power over what we eat.
We only need to act on that true power. Together.
If a cow is about to be killed , how is it better for the cow to be calm and relaxed, basically tricked into a false sense of comfort? Isn't it better for the cow to resist, to cry out in the face of injustice? As far as I'm concerned, to pacify a righteously enraged beast is far more cruel and inhumane than brutal, unveiled murder .
When I was a young child exploring, I walked into a slaughter house. The sounds of the cattle brought me there. After the sounds, I could see and smell the blood in pools like water. It was terrifying for me and I left.
In our early history, protein and dairy were needed. I liked the Native Americans view of a clean hit as possible, offering water for the animals journey home, using prayer and using everything/waste nothing of the animal that has given its life so that others may live. It comes down to respect of all living things.
I would also like to add that I am very impressed that Temple achieved a Dr. degree. My daughter has a form of autism and it gives us great hope. She too observes and is wonderful with a camera. We will be watching the movie!
or read the book .
It makes TONS of business sense and is far more humane.
Less dead cows on the lot (a dead cow on the lot is wasted meat )
more efficient herd movements
less damage to the equipment and cows themselves
Also, the cows are killed EXACTLY the same way whether they are anxious or not. Oh... and they are not "righteously enraged" because they never know what's about to happen to them, it's illogical to infer human characteristics on a cow. When they are on the lot and "enraged" it is because they are scared and afraid, not angry. Temple Grandin practically proved this.
" Isn't it better for the cow to resist, to cry out in the face of injustice?"
No, and it's not injustice, it's the circle of life. Furthermore, it would be far more injust to put them in the situation you think is "righteous".
Your points are all correct. Part of the problem might be most people have no idea what happens to make that steak appear at the butcher's display. Maybe they think it's a magical process. I have watched the slaughter process; there's no magic in it at all. Humane animal killing makes a better, cheaper product.
I am not sure about how I would feel about a steak that was grown in a protein vat in a laboratory. If the texture and flavor at medium-rare was right, then I could do it.
I agree with you wholly that there is strong financial incentive to maintain high quality product. The issue I take with Dr. Grandin is that she pushes the emotional angle and insists that what she is doing is good for cows. This is a very morbid and skewed view of "good". There is no good to be had for cows that are even deeper locked into an industry that continues to grow in profits and productivity and a paradigm of consumers enjoying the benefits of disconnected, superficial behaviors.
I don't accept that a cow has a strong sense of injustice, but the notion of "the circle of life" when it comes to describing the western world's methods of consumption (of food and other resources) is, at the very least, equally absurd and unfounded.
Are you upset at the state of the industry? So am I! Are you upset that the cows aren't raised on open fields that allow normal grass grazing? So am I!
However, I find it highly strange for you to oppose Dr. Grandin's goals of making their lives more at peace simply because you don't see a purpose in making their lives more comfortable. Dr. Grandin pushes that 'what's good for the cows is also good for us'. I fail to see what's wrong with this. It's not morbid or skewed, it's the pragmatism of the real world buddy! It's called making REALITY a better place, not some fantasy perfect world of "free range" cows.
What in the world is your alternative?! Let them be crazed on the lot because we're going to kill them anyways?
I'm simply amazed that you oppose Dr. Grandin on such shallow and downright insensitive grounds. Your view seems "morbid and skewed" IMO. I don't understand, is your position based on a total lack of empathy or so much that you can't accept any of this cow eating stuff?
If you do not understand my position yet, then passing judgment on it is premature. You made some pretty bold conclusions that cannot be linked directly to what I have said. Allow me to try to clear up my position.
I will start by noting that I consider my grounds to be neither shallow nor insensitive. They are logical and highly compassionate.
My angle is one of ethical alignment. In a world where any use of cows (not just the worst use of them) is based solely on human pleasure and convenience, it seems to me that someone who would presume to sell her ideas to the world as being compassionate and in the best interest of other animals is flawed on one very significant point: Dr. Temple Grandin clearly states that she believes animals do have interests. She, however, would like her audience to believe that among these best interests, the interests to be free from human exploitation and suffering are nowhere to be found . Her reasoning is in direct contradiction to her proposed intentions. If she stated that her primary goal is to assist industries in their exploitation of animals by improving the quality of the product, then she would be perfectly aligned. She does not, however. She insists that she's helping animals and that her "everybody wins" pitch is what will sell it.
The issue I take with her work is several-fold. First, due to her efforts, the industry is able to increase profit, increase efficiency, and increase output. The woman who speaks for the interests of animals is making it so that more of them are killed per unit of time and the killing process becomes more lucrative. Second, her "at least it's something" approach rubs off easily upon those who have been trained to leave changing the world up to others instead of examining their own lives, values, and behaviors. Third, the more people's consciences have been pacified by truthiness and euphemisms, the less likely they are to be open to learning how they are implicated in the consequences their actions bring about. I assure you that you're not the first person to be appalled at me for opposing Temple Grandin. After all, she appears to be "making reality a better place". It's the incontestable nature of this strange form of pseudo-altruism. I appreciate the fact that you're challenging my stance instead of ignoring it. Many people are so caught in a web of confusion and deceit that they immediately dismiss any concept I ask them to consider.
I offer you these two:
1) How can Temple Grandin's efforts to keep cows oblivious to their approaching horrific final minutes of life be labeled as "in the best interest of cows" when more cows die as a result and the one interest common among all mammals is not even being considered?
I suppose we feel a little better when a murderer executes a small child with a gun anonymously instead of harming her in captivity over a period of time before killing her, but we still find both acts to be morally deplorable.
2) What does it mean to have too much empathy?