Food Justice is an Animal Rights Issue
By Matthew Liebman, ALDF Staff Attorney
Last March, my partner and I volunteered to gather data for an important study by the Food Empowerment Project on the availability of fruits and vegetables in Santa Clara County, California.
The Food Empowerment Project just released the report this week, and the results are disturbing, reflecting significant disparities in access to healthy foods in low-income communities and communities of color.
But first, why am I writing about this study here? Why is this an “animal issue”? The Food Empowerment Project, led by long-time animal rights campaigner lauren Ornelas, is one of the few groups working at the intersections of the animal rights movement and the food justice movement, drawing connections between the exploitation of human and nonhuman animals in the production and distribution of food.
As its mission states, “The Food Empowerment Project seeks to create a more just and sustainable world by recognizing the power of one's food choices. We encourage healthy food choices that reflect a more compassionate society by spotlighting the abuse of animals on farms, the depletion of natural resources, unfair working conditions for produce workers, and the unavailability of healthy foods in low-income areas.”
It is this last component, also known as “food deserts,” that the Santa Clara study addresses. FEP volunteers conducted extensive surveys of the offerings at grocery stores, convenience stores, and liquor stores in lower-income and higher-income neighborhoods and compared the results. Here are some of the findings:
- “On a per-capita basis, the higher-income areas have 2.4 times as many large supermarkets compared to the lower-income areas. Additionally, the lower income areas have nearly twice as many liquor stores and 50% more meat markets than the higher-income areas. . . . The disparity is significant and shows that those living in lower-income areas are relying on small corner markets while those in higher-income areas have access to large grocery stores.”
- “All types of fruits and vegetables covered by the survey are more commonly available in higher-income areas, except (non-organic) canned fruits and vegetables, which are equally available in both higher- and lower-income neighborhoods. Those living in the higher-income areas have significantly more access to fresh, frozen, and organic produce.”
- “On average, higher-income areas have twice as many locations with fresh fruits and vegetables compared to the lower-income areas. The disparity for frozen produce is even higher, with higher-income areas having 14 times more locations with frozen fruit and six times more locations with frozen vegetables.”
- “[A]ccess to organic fruits and vegetables is almost nonexistent in the low-income areas and represents the greatest disparity between the two types of areas surveyed . . . .”
- “[W]hile meat alternatives were available in more than a fifth (22%) of locations in higher-income areas, they were available in only 2% of locations in lower-income areas. Similarly, 18% of locations in higher-income areas had vegan meat alternative options, versus less than 1% of locations in lower-income areas.”
- “Dairy alternatives . . . , such as soymilk and rice milk, are available in only 3% of locations in lower-income areas (which have proportionally much larger populations of ethnic minorities), compared with 23% of locations in the higher-income areas. And while only 1% of locations in lower-income areas had vegan dairy alternatives, 21% of locations in higher-income areas had vegan options.”
These results illustrate the drastic inequalities in access to healthy, vegan food in low-income communities. Food justice, in addition to being a compelling civil rights issue on its own terms, is an animal rights issue: we cannot promote a vegan, plant-based diet without simultaneously trying to remedy the structural injustices that make such a diet nearly impossible for large portions of the country.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
and that is why those options are fewer in low income areas.
I I think 'flounder is floundering in his/her post. Do you forget so soon that HSUS sat on the evidence of those downer cows for MONTHS, knowing the meat was shipped to schools, and they did nothing to try to stop it. Their only purpose for that video was to find a sponsor for another of their coersive bills to end any use of animals in this country...and to beg for money. That money doesn't even help animals, let alone children. If they cared so much about the welfare of the animals or children either one, why didn't they take it to the authorities immediately?
All this vegan stuff is fine for those of you who don't want to eat meat or use animal products, but it's shameful and criminal to use it to denigrate those who have different beliefs and to line your own pockets. Very little of the money taken in by large AR groups ever goes to help any animals. It's nothing more than a money making scheme.
Animal rights groups make more money off the backs of animals than any animal producer ever has or ever will.
HSUS did take the downer videos to the authorities immediately - local authorities, that is. They chose to sit on the evidence for months, doing nothing, because local authorities are loathe to interfere with local businesses. Most don't care about animals and as usual money trumps everything else. After months of trying to get local authorities to do something, with no success, HSUS made the videos public. The resulting public outcry forced action.
You claim that very little of the money taken in by the large AR groups goes to help animals. Can you substantiate this claim?
Did you read on the HSUS site that they went to the authorities immediately? Did they define immediately? Consider this: Without the video no one could do anything and HSUS refused to turn the video over to the authorities. Until they found a legislator willing to sponsor another of their bills, they would not even turn the video over to the DA. They had that video for (if I remember correctly) 5 months before it was ever turned over to the authorities and the investigation was already underway before that video was released publicly. They released it when they did to get public donations and backing for their legislation. They do NOTHING unless they think it will benefit their agenda and their pockets.
Nobody is saying the slaughter house did nothing wrong. They absolutely did, but HSUS is no better. If they are so wonderful, why do you suppose they have a federal suit against them right now for racketeering? Why do you suppose those charges include fraud, money laundering, and paying witnesses (among other things)? Why do you suppose they have a federal suit against them in Hawaii for fraud and defamation? Why do you think they have several 1983 Civil Rights filed against them for theft under color of law and warrantless seizures?
Why do you suppose out of all the hundreds of millions of donation dollars only $485,000 went to shelters around the entire U.S. and over two million went into their own paychecks and pension funds? The pittance they gave to a shelter in my state was given under the stipulation it had to go to printing literature and pamphlets to distribute about the HSUS. Not a dime of it was allowed to be used to care for the animals in the shelter.
If you want proof of where their money goes, read their income tax reports. As a so-called charity they are required to post it publicly. More food for thought: They used to brag about being listed in Charity Navigator as a 4 star charity. After recieving several complaints, Charity Navigator did and investigation and due to their findings HSUS now has only one star.
They are now under investigation by the IRS after the IRS recieved over 1000 pages of proof (not just accusation, but PROOF), much of it in pages saved and printed from their own website and IRS forms, that they have far overstepped their boundaries of being a legal non-profit. If they are found guilty, just imagine what the back taxes and penalties for the past 5 years will be if the IRS finds them guilty. Imagine that $200+ million a year in donations and assets will be and what it will do for our economy. These are all reasons why those of us who have researched the HSUS urge people to give to their local shelters instead of HSUS and other big AR groups. (By the way) the ASPCA, Born Free, and several others are also named in the racketeering suit along with HSUS, some of their lawyers and lawyers connected with each group named.
You obviously hate HSUS so there's probably nothing I can say to convince you otherwise, but
1. HSUS says it released the downed cow video immediately to local authorities who did nothing, you say it didn't. Sounds like "He said, she said."
2. The Hawaiian Humane Society is a local group, unaffiliated with the national HSUS. There have been problems there for years, I know; I've written letters myself on behalf of local AR groups trying to clean it up.
3. HSUS doesn't support shelters (except in emergency situations) as that is not its mission. It goes after large scale institutionalized animal abuse like that found on factory farms and in research labs, "entertainment" venues like circuses, etc. While going after individuals who abuse animals is important, as shelters do, the greatest abuse involving the most animals occurs at the institutional level. You are talking about powerful monied interests here (like pharmaceutical corporations who are the driving force behind vivisection). They don't like their profits being interfered with and viciously attack anyone or anything that tries to stop them.
4. Since you were mistaken about the Hawaiian HS I don't know how accurate your other info is. Some of these lawsuits may be frivilous/harassment types. Corporate animal abusers hate HSUS because it is effective and influential and stop at nothing to discredit it.
Do I hate them? Absolutely. They do much more harm than any good they've ever accomplished..which has been little.
No, I'm not mistaken. It isn't the Hawaiian HS that charges are filed against, it's HSUS.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/global/story.asp?s=11121142
http://carrollcox.com/Pang.htm
Animal lovers who know the truth about HSUS hate them. No, you won't change my mind about them. Here are a few quotes directly from Wayne Pacelle and John Goodwin, both executives of HSUS (There are many, MANY more):
"We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock
produced through selective breeding ...One generation and out. We have no
problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of
human selective breeding." Wayne Pacelle CEO of HSUS - Animal People News, May 1993
"My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture." JP Goodwin, employed at the Humane Society of the US, formerly at Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade, as quoted on AR-Views, an animal rights Internet discussion group in 1996.
"We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States ... We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state. Wayne Pacelle, Senior VP Humane Society of the US (HSUS), formerly of Friends of Animals and Fund for Animals, Full Cry Magazine, October 1, 1990.
When asked if he envisioned a future without pets, “If I had my personal view, perhaps that might take hold. In fact, I don’t want to see another dog or cat born.” Wayne Pacelle quoted in Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt by Ted Kerasote, 1993, p. 266.
“I don’t have a hands-on fondness for animals…To this day I don’t feel bonded to any non-human animal. I like them and I pet them and I’m kind to them, but there’s no special bond between me and other animals.” Wayne Pacelle quoted in Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt by Ted Kerasote, 1993, p. 251.
Their goal is not to end abuse of animals. Their goal is to eliminate anything to do with animals. You may believe their rhetoric but the number of people taking the time to find out who they are do not.
Animal abuse does need to be addressed, but not by people like them. By people who care about animal welfare, not animal rights.
I take a rights position myself. A welfare position advocating animal usage (theoretically in a humane manner) places the animal in slavery, utterly subject to human desires and whims. Even if humans are called upon to treat their chattel humanely, and even, in fact, if laws are passed dictating the same, the fact remains that the interest of slaveholders always trumps that of the slave. This was true of human slaves in the last century, and it is true of animals today. In many cases and locales anti-cruelty laws are not enforced, or violators receive minimal sentencing. Some of the worst cruelty, like that on factory farms and research labs, is made legal.
The only way around this is to give animals rights to bodily integrity, freedom from slavery, and freedom from torture. Of course, this means that many long-standing human traditions and practices like eating animals, using them for entertainment or as surrogates for medical purposes, would have to be discontinued. The upside would be much less abuse of humans as well, because animal abuse, which is widely accepted in human culture, deadens empathy and creates a mindset that can rationalize mistreatment of living creatures.
A welfarist position guarantees continued animal abuse.
Like it or not, humans are part of the animal kingdom and are the most cognizant of the kingdom. As part of the animal kingdom we are also part of the food chain and, again, like it or not, animals do eat other animals as part of that chain.
Humans are omnivores and subsist on both plant and animal nourishment. We also have the ability to reason and make choices. If you choose not to eat meat, there's nothing wrong with that just as there is nothing wrong with those who choose to retain meat as part of their diet.
Yes, we have the choice to allow all animals to be free and with that freedom comes much less humane death..many times being eaten while still alive. It also includes slow death for animals who become ill with no one to care for them and treat them.
Just as we give up freedoms in life through laws and regulation and limitations, we exchange those freedoms for safety. You consider owning animals slavery? I let my 'slaves' out to play several times every day and they always come back scratching at the door or barking to come back in. If they are slaves, it is by their choice. They give up freedom for care and comfort and safety. The animals we have as pets, with the exception of those owned by abusers, live much longer and more comfortable lives than they would 'running free' and fighting for survival while eating other animals slower or weaker than they are.
Don't kid yourself. Even if we had no animals in our lives, if they were all set free, there would still be abusers in this world. There will still be murderers and rapists and torturers and even cannibals. Some people just have sick hearts and souls and that will not go away just because we don't have non human animals in our homes and lives.
You may not agree with animals being used for research, but the same research that is used to advance human care is also used to advance care of animals. Some give their lives for that research so that others will live. Some humans give their lives every day so that others will live. There are few things in life that are not a trade-off for something else.
Yes, we do kill animals for food. Animals of all species kill other animals to live. All living things eat to survive. Because of our higher reasoning ability, we do our best to make sure the death of the animals we eat is as quick and painless as possible. That does not happen in the wild.
The only thing that guarantees continued animal abuse is people who enjoy abusing other living things, whether it's humans or animals or both. The biggest problem with defining abuse is that as many people you can ask about what abuse is will also be the number of different definitions you will receive. Some will be close in comparison and some will not.
If you think life for animals on factory farms (where 95% of the flesh foods in this country are produced) is pleasant, and that the deaths they endure at slaughterhouses are quick and painless, then you haven't viewed the videos that have come out of these places. Life for animals on factory farms is torture and in fact these "farms" have been referred to as animal concentration camps. In contrast, in the wild, if an animal becomes prey, it is killed quickly.
Well cared for pets are not slaves. They want to be where they are. On the other hand, factory farmed animals, research animals, circus animals, zoo animals, etc., are slaves because they do not want to be where they are (as evidenced by cages, chains, whips, bullhooks, etc) When they are able to escape, they do. They obviously don't want to be where they are, and are thus slaves of the people who force them to stay and do what they want them to.
Animals in general belong in the wild. Animal usage supporters try to claim that they are much better off in captivity, that they will die slowly of starvation, wounds, etc. in the wild. The problem is that the wild is shrinking dramatically with increasing human population; the solution is to ensure enough wild areas for animals to be able to survive independently as they have done for millions of years.
If you think captivity is so great, being fed and cared for and all, why don't you sign yourself into your local prison? The fact is that all living creatures want to be free and control their own destinies, not be controlled by someone else.
Humans who give their lives for others do so by choice; lab animals, in contrast, do not. You obviously also haven't seen videos from research labs which depict horrendous cruelty in often frivilous or duplicative "experiments." I also wouldn't be too sure of the value of vivisection; in this country all you hear is the argument of the vivisectors (pharmaceutical corporations which are the main driving force behind vivisection do a lot of media advertising - this big money makes it almost impossible to get an opposing view out, even though many doctors and researchers oppose animal research. In countries like England which have a much freer press than we do, and where opinions against vivisection are published regularly, there is much less public support for it.)
You are correct when you say that there will always be evil people, but that doesn't mean we shoudln't try to stop evil from being practiced. A mindset which condemns all species on earth but our own to an "inferior" caste, and allows unspeakable brutality to these so-called "inferiors" is bound to get some of this brutality coming back at it.
I don't disagree with you on fighting against evil happening. But seeing only one side of an issue keeps us from seeing that all larger farms are not evil. I've seen the videos..many of them..and I've also seen many farms and the animals on them. All large farms are NOT what's in those videos. For every one where abuse is found there are dozens more where it isn't.
The problem with a lot of the videos is that they are edited and narrated for the purpose of shocking the general public who have been too far removed from agriculture to have any idea what's involved in raising and caring for animals on a daily basis from birth to market. The focus is so much on the animals in those videos and not once do people watching them think about how many farmers or their family members have died raising food for us. Not just the farmers raising animals, but those raising fruits and vegetables as well.
Why do you suppose you never see the farmers in the news who don't abuse their animals? It isn't because they don't exist. It's because they can't be held up and used to discredit the farmers who feed us. If a story is released about a farmer doing things right, it's usually only in one or two local papers or newscasts. If an 'abuse video or story is released, it's broadcast from coast to coast.
That is true whether it's about farms or dogs being seized for abuse. The abuse part of the stories are ALWAYS broadcast far and wide. But if those owners are acquitted of abuse charges you'll be lucky to see or read about it anywhere. The abuse charges were shocking enough for good ratings, but finding out the accused person(s) was innocent is not. Unless the media is willing to do follow ups on these incidents and/or the public makes an effort to find out how each of those stories played out, they will never know that most of these incidents DO end up in acquittals when ALL of the facts are presented in court. The media is only going to follow up on those in which the accused is found guilty and could not care less that they have ruined lives and reputations of those who were found innocent because it won't get them ratings.
Animals are intelligent and they are sentient and they feel pain. Those are facts. It's also fact that they live by instinct rather than highly developed reasoning skills. It's the ability to reason on a much higher level that makes humans superior to other animals. That ability is the reason we have more elaborate homes than a cave, den, nest or a beaver dam. It's why we have vehicles to travel in comfort by land, water, and air. It's why we are able to make and use complicated tools. It's why we have devised ways to heat and cool the homes we live in.
Animals don't feel the array of emotions humans do. If they kill another animal for food or for trespassing on their territory, they feel no guilt or remorse for it. They don't care if their dinner was killed humanely. Have you ever seen a dog kill chickens or cats just because they enjoyed it, not because they were hungry? Those are just a few of the many reason humans see themselves as superior to other animals.
There is nothing you eat that wasn't killed to feed you. All the fruits and vegetables were living things before you ate them. It's been proven that even plants feel pain, on a much lower level than we do, but they feel it and they react to it. Do we need to push for more humane ways to keep and kill them also?
There are just as many, if not more, doctors who support the use of animals in research as those who don't. The most basic instinct that all living things share is the desire to survive. We all have the ability to learn and make decisions on what to believe and how to live our lives to follow those beliefs. To make the best decisions, one should look at each belief from all angles before deciding what will allow them to look in the mirror and be happy with the person they see. I know that without what was learned through visvisection and animal testing, my husband would not still be here with me. I know people who have received transplants and are still living are happy to still be alive because of the research that made their transplant surgery possible. Other methods of research should be used when available, but I support animal research and vivisection when it's the best option.
How have farmers died raising food for us?
I disagree with your assertions that animal abuse coverage is widespread - for every abuse video made public there are a hundred that aren't. These exposes occur on a depressingly regular basis, but few actually make the news. The frequency of video factory farm abuse, especially of the big outfits like Tyson's and Pilgrim's Pride, and even at smaller family run factory style farms (several have come out of Ohio, one at a pig farm and another documented severe abuse of dairy cows and calves, DeCoster I think it was) leave me skeptical that anyone who factory farms animals isn't abusive. The very nature of factory farms is abusive, even if the animals aren't being directly abused by "caretakers."
Even in cases of severe documented abuse, these operations usually get off with a slap on the wrist, if they are prosecuted at all. In one case in Pennsylvania involving severe abuse at a chicken farm, all charges were dismissed, even though chicken and agricultural experts testified that definite abuse was occurring. Local prosecutors are loathe to go after local businesses. In small rural areas where people know each other, neighbors are loathe to convict neighbors. A dismissal doesn't necessarily indicate justice has been done,or an innocent person was wrongly convicted. After the dust dies down and the media leave town (if they were there in the first place), the business resumes operations just like before. In a capitalist society the law is weighted heavily in favor of business. Operations like circuses commit repeat violations of the already weak AWA for years and they are never shut down or the abused animals confiscated. They are given chance after chance to right the violations. It practically takes an act of God for the FDA to confiscate an animal.
You are mistaken when you assert that animals do not feel the emotions that we do. A growing body of research proves that higher level animals feel a full range of emotions like ours. They feel happiness, sadness, fear, jealousy, hatred, love, etc., and can bond with others of their species as well as humans who care well for them. People who research the emotional and cognitive lives of animals say they are much more like us emotionally than physically. You say they don't care if their dinner was killed humanely. Well, neither do humans - the large majority of flesh foods and products like milk in this country come from factory farms (95%) and humans eat them anyway. At least animals do their own killing whereas for most humans they pay others to do it for them and the whole process is out of sight and out of mind. And as far as animals killing for enjoyment, there are no end of hunters who do the same thing.
Humans can inflict brutality on themselves and other creatures on a scale no other animal can. I don't see other animals operating factory farms or research labs, inflicting endless horrific wars on themselves and the planet, polluting their own environment for profit, enslaving other species. It takes more than reasoning skills to make a superior species.
Plants lack brains and central nervous systems and thus have no mechanism to experience pain. Plants lack sentience, consciousness, awareness, and self awareness, all of which higher level animals have. To try to justify carnivorism on the basis of theoretical plant abilities while at the same time dismissing cruelty to food animals because they lack emotions is a specious argument. (Plants lack emotions for that matter).
Doctors and researchers support vivisection because that is where the money and career paths lie. It takes courage to oppose mainstream thinking and the people who do this are ostracized, their research and opinion pieces are ignored and unpublished, especially in this country. I wouldn't be too sure of the claims of vivisectors that all medical knowledge and advances were based on animal research. If you look at the websites of anti-vivisection societies, they fully refute the claims of vivisectors. Also, just because something was developed using vivisection doesn't mean it had to be.
You say that all living things share the desire to survive - this includes animals.