...and cruelty, suffering and death. 

Huh? We're talking about milk, not meat here.

i guess you're unaware that "layer hens" and dairy cows go through as much, if not more, torture than animals raised for food. http://www.goveg.com/factoryFarming_chickens_egg.asp

Ok, I do agree that caging chickens is pretty cruel, I would prefer to get eggs from chickens that aren't penned up all their lives, that I can happily agree with. As for the cows? It's a better life than one in the wild, I have zero doubt.

As for 'torture,' you throw that word around like it's valid, and it isn't. Not once do they have bamboo shoots shoved under their hooves, they are not waterboarded etc. Mistreated? Maybe, and in some cases, sure, but tortured? The sooner you stop the vitriolic rhetoric, the sooner you will get respect from those who disagree with you.

Clayton,

I agree with the fact that the word "torture" conjures up images of waterboarding and other awful things being done to humans. However, I absolutely think the word also applies to what happens routinely on factory farms. A few examples are debeaking, tail-cutting, forced insemination, and being deprived of iron to be made anemic (because, hello?, it makes veal look pretty).

I must also take a moment to express my irritation over your "they're better off on farms than in the wild" argument. Shall we put all wild animals in zoos, then? Your statement implies that we own the animals and have the right to decide what's best for them. It also downplays/ignores the fact that what we proclaim is best for them, is actually what's best for US. Convenient.

"they're better off on farms than in the wild"

Also, these animals are domestic breeds, they wouldn't have even existed if we hadn't invented them.  They would have been better of REMAINING wild breeds.

We really don't have much choice. I have no intention of becoming a herbivore. I LIKE meat. And as long as I continue to eat it, I'm pretty sure that anything short of killing the creature, or intentional infliction of harm, is better than eating it.

I'm sorry my comment irritated you, but once they're no longer feral, they can no longer fend for themselves in the wild, they have no CHOICE but to be kept as milk cows, because if they get out, the real big bad world will eat them up a lot faster than we will. We can neither afford to put all animals in a zoo, nor is it approrpriate. Only a few like cows have become so tame they cannot manage in the wild. Release all the dairy and meat cows right now, and they'll be extinct in a few generations, because they're no longer capable of self-sustenance.

Yes, it is very much at our convenience. We have managed to over-populate this planet, but still require sufficient nutrition for us to live. We've eaten these animals for millenia, and I have no intention of breaking that cycle, though while they are alive, they should be cared for as best we can.

I now drive 1 hour to get my eggs, milk, meat, from a true organic farm.  I can see the animals out in the fields.  I do not eat much meat now, and I am progressing to going meat free.

And factory farm cruelty is not humerous.  Shame on the media.  Cretins from the Dark Ages! 

"...once they're no longer feral, they can no longer fend for themselves in the wild, they have no CHOICE but to be kept as milk cows, because if they get out, the real big bad world will eat them up a lot faster than we will. We can neither afford to put all animals in a zoo, nor is itappropriate . Only a few like cows have become so tame they cannot manage in the wild. Release all the dairy and meat cows right now, and they'll be extinct in a few generations, because they're no longer capable of self-sustenance."

Do you honestly think that the whole world is going to go vegan OVERNIGHT?  Capitalism 101, as demand drops (more people forsaking milk/eggs/meat/etc) supply will drop with it (no more breeding domesticated cows/chickens for milk/eggs).  Problem solved.  Why this is so difficult for people to grasp is beyond me....

In addition, I have to say most everyone likes the TASTE of meat, but if you think that raising animals for slaughter is wrong and won't give up it because of TASTE, well, that says a lot about the moral commitment that you may or may not posses....

Clayton,

Who argued that we ought to "release" dairy cows into the wild? (The argument was that we shouldn't have domesticated, etc. these animals in the first place - please read carefully Clayton.) This is certainly an either/or fallacy. There are alternatives: sanctuary perhaps. But this isn't the point. Your comment mocked the notion of going egg or dairy free with an appeal to "taste." That's absurd unless you've truly sampled example after example of vegan-pastries.

Furthermore, I also "liked" cheese and meat, and yet, I'm vegan. Therefore, let me correct you: one doesn't often go vegan because they don't like flesh or reproductive excrements.

We need sufficient nutrition. You're correct Clayton. A vegan diet provides such nutrition, well, according to the American Dietetic Association (ADA).    

Oh yes, we've also raped, killed, enslaved and waged war against members of our own species "for millennia." Do you have any intention of "ending that cycle," or at least agitating for an end to that cycle Clayton?

You must have never had a vegan donut

Clayton,
You must have never had a vegan donut it has tons of flavor and taste better.

Agreed! My husband and I have shared the vegan donuts from Ronald's (in Las Vegas) with many omnis, none of whom can distinguish them from the "real" thing (their words, not mine - vegan donuts are every bit as real as the cruelty-filled kind).

Why not just get cruelty-free eggs and milk?  Really, I don't want to lose any part of the deliciousness. 

Please read the preceding comments to which you're replying, which point out clearly that omitting cruel ingredients wouldn't change the "deliciousness."

Cruelty-free eggs and milk aren't a reality. Doughnuts with all the loved taste but without eggs and milk are possible and easy.

Vegan baking is just as delicious as the other kind.  Except, the guilt-free aspect makes it go down easier.

Cruelty-free eggs are a reality.

Hens produce eggs whether they are fertilized or not. Unfertilized eggs are rarely 'sat'. Our hens stay on our farm long after they stop producing eggs, where they die naturally. They pick bugs and help scratch out manure. They roam ten acres and enjoy frequent dust baths.

The most cruelty they endure is after a fox or coyote catches their scent and comes around to get them. Their deaths, in those instances, are not "instant". They are chased down, clawed and dragged off. We've witnessed female foxes drag half-live birds to her den, presumably so her pups can practice.

Any cruelty we induce on our birds comes when we pen them up to protect them from predators.

I can honestly say that cruelty free eggs are available, you just have to look for them in farmers' markets and food co-ops, rather than supermarkets. We even sell ours at prices comprable to the "bad eggs" sold at the bigger stores.

And where do your hens come from, Sarah? A hatchery, I suppose? What about every male chick who was ground up alive, crushed, or suffocated for every female chick who became one of your egg-laying hens? How do you account for all the young male chicks who after they hatch are of no use for the egg-laying industry, whether industrial or backyard?

And we once again come back too to what is realistic and sustainable. Truly "free-range" and backyard egg operations simply cannot come close to meeting humans' demand for eggs and could not even if the demand decreased notably. There simply isn't enough space.

Also, telling people that all they have to do is get their eggs from a farmers' market or co-op is disingenuous; the vast majority of small-scale egg producers and even backyard egg producers do not allow their hens to live out natural lives. Slaughter and a dinner plate is the fate for the majority of hens exploited by so-called humane operations too.

And again, there are the hundreds of millions of young male chicks who are brutally killed each year by hatcheries because they're of no use.

And just like we don't need dairy, we don't need eggs.

Again, you're right. We don't need chicken eggs or dairy.

But you've brought up a good point. To which I will respond, and where do your dogs come from, Stephanie? They were born, and otherwise would've suffered horribly had you not rescued them and given them a far better, though far from 'natural' life. You recognized their right to exist and you provide people an example of how they should be treated.

If you don't support exploiting animals, how do you justify owning those dogs? Your adoption fees help perpetuate the agency from whence they came. That agency is no more than a place where prior owners feel comfortable dumping their pets, or where neglected or abused animals are placed by the 'authorities'. They will continue to do so until those agencies cease to exist. That will never happen. Why? Because of good, well-meaning, compassionate souls who recognize the right of their fellow beings to exist.

You 'rescued' dogs. Who's to say my hens, regardless of where they were purchased, aren't 'rescued' from battery cages?

Caring for those beings that exist can't even be classified as one of your 'necessary evils.' It is simply necessary, and arguably, the moral thing to do. As with my example of humane dairy, what you are tossing aside with "big deal" stand as arguments for compassion in a world that frequently ignores the violence it blindly supports.

You say repeatedly that we can't keep up with the demand with humane operations. No one's trying to. What we're doing is providing humane alternatives for those few-and-far between folk that want to support the humane treatment of creatures that exist under unfortunate circumstances. That applies both to operations like mine and to agencies like those that sheltered your dogs.

Never discount the outliers. They can drastically impact the average.

It's true that there will continue to be "dumpsters" of dogs and cats and horses and other species.

They're not all purposely overbreeding or overpurchasing animals just because they know there's a ready supply of bleeding hearts who will adopt (pay money for) their rejects.

Some are, though, as you rightly point out, Sarah. I have a friend in horse rescue who swears, after going to auctions to find horses needing a home, that there are horse breeders and traders who count on kind-hearted rescuers to bail them just in case the slaughter market price drops too low or the slaughter option closes altogether.

It's important to mention that the agencies you describe that enable the Stephanies of the world to rescue dogs are not profit-makers. They don't even break even. They constantly rely on donations from like-minded souls, above and beyond the costs of rehabbing and placing the animals. Whereas my impression is that yours is a profit-making operation, Sarah. Maybe I'm wrong.

Discerning the MOTIVE -- our own, much less other people's -- for providing an animal with food and shelter and LIFE is tricky, but all-important.

The bottom line, for me, is that when you "rescue" a hen from a battery-cage subsistence life or even from a typical free-range existence, if you are doing so to supply her eggs to a market and earn money off of her, to please other humans who want to consider themselves humane, that is a FAR different motive from Stephanie or any of the rest of us rescuing dogs and cats and horses. We're doing it for THE ANIMALS' BENEFIT, period. Whereas the hen "owner"/egg-seller, as I see it, is doing it primarily for HUMANS' BENEFIT (the business owner and the customers).

That is the difference between a profit-making enterprise (even if a small one) and a sanctuary, a safe haven: MOTIVE!

I'm not sure it is possible to control other people's motives. Put another way, I'm sure it's impossible to control other people's motives! It is, however, possible to govern our own. And if more and more of us progress to the point of unselfing our motives, THAT is what the world needs more of. And, ever so slowly, one by one, as this unselfish ethic supplants our previously selfish (slightly or grossly) rationale, the scene will shift, as a combination of reformed hearts and reformed laws increasingly desires to do right by our creature cousins, and make their worth independent of their money-making ability.

If you are questioning my motives you are headed in the wrong direction entirely. We rely on egg sales (btw, we don't charge more for our eggs than any factory farm) for farm upkeep. I'm absolutely certain that even if we could sell every egg, the less-than-$30 a week wouldn't pay the electricity bill, let alone cover overhead and count as profit. By selling the eggs at this low price, the hens pay for themselves and nothing more.

As you say, we can't control other people's motives. But it isn't about motives. If a man has sex with his young daughter and defends it as an act of love (yes, I've heard it), people wouldn't really care about that motive, because in the end the child is hurt.

That's a weak argument, because we can find negative and positive examples. But I'm not trying to argue motives. I'm arguing that regardless of motive, it doesn't sit right to participate in what you readily define as exploitation (owning animals. not profiting financially necessarily, but keeping them as property) and then turn around and advocate against it.

If the belief is that a living creature's worth is based in his/her own system, such that he/she cannot be imposed upon by another being for that other being's system of worth, abstinence from eating/wearing animal products is only a drop in the bucket. That idea doesn't seem to rightly allow for the use of companion animals.

One of the blogs Stephanie lists today actually mentions (though doesn't discuss the ethical implications) that HSUS and PETA etc., perpetuate the problem of nonhuman exploitation.

Because of that disconnect however, I find myself identifying much more with the animal welfare philosophy than with the animal rights philosophy. It seems like the welfare idea advocates a right to exist and responsibility to care, while the animal rights philosophy is a list of negative rights (right not to be eaten, etc.) and no practical answer to what it sees as the ethical problem.

I realize it's not a farm or wild choice. But right now, what is the choice? Factory farm or sanctuary? You know those farm animal sanctuaries will be much easier to sustain if, oh, I dunno... they sell the eggs rather than let them rot?

They've been bred for us. That's the heart of the problem. We forced them into the situation. Yet they do exist. And they should be treated as any living thing should.

This isn't an attack on Stephanie or any other animal rights advocate that owns animals. It's actually more of a defense for those actions. In that, it's also an argument for what you're classifying as 'exploitation,' as a practical way to manage and understand a man-made ethical problem.

So where do your hens come from Sarah?

Your analogy with dog rescue only follows if you simultaneously agitate for an end to the processes whereby you obtain the hens you exploit for their eggs.

Sarah, I will have to disagree with you. In my mind, motives are always of critical importance.

You described a man who says he does something out of love but it violates someone else and society has made the act illegal. Even if it were not illegal, any decent human being in today's society knows that the man you speak of has a concept of love that is perverse, and that his hidden motive, his real motive, belied by his words, is selfish, impure, wrong, unethical. He may fool himself into thinking that his motives are good, but he's not fooling (m)any of the rest of us, or his Creator! And I don't think he can fool even himself (his higher self) forever.

Another way of thinking about motives is to look at what takes place during a trial when the defendent is accused of killing someone. The judge and jury are asked to ascertain not only whether the defendent committed the act (or whether someone else did), but also his motive for the crime. The motive determines whether the defendent will be found guilty (or not) of manslaughter, negligent homicide, or one of the degrees of murder, and sentenced accordingly.

If it's determined to be negligent homicide, that means the jury used its best judgment (if the majority of the panel's motives are unprejudiced, impartial) to decide that the defendent didn't mean to do it, didn't premeditate it. In other words, that it was an unintentional accident. (I'm no lawyer, so excuse me if my legal terms aren't correct).

The outcome of the case would be determined by motives: by each involved individual's desire to tell the truth and to be just to the victim's family, to the defendent, and to the the community (with all those needs balanced).

The highest goal (motive) would be to prevent further suffering by all parties. Even the goal of punishing the wrongdoer SHOULD be to help the wrongdoer reform, so that even HIS suffering (which always attends selfish motives and acts, sooner or later) will cease. Maybe not everyone agrees with me, but I don't want anyone to suffer, except if that suffering is the only way to help that person mend his heart (motives) and his ways (acts). 

Even if someone does something wrong (unjust, unmerciful, unkind) out of ignorance -- meaning his motive wasn't to hurt anyone but he did so anyway -- he will suffer until he wakes up, realizes his mistake, corrects his ignorance, purifies his motives, and learns to do right.

Now, the hens. If someone sees some forlorn-looking, obviously mistreated hens and has the compassion, respect for them, knowledge and  wherewithal to save them from a miserable life and untimely death and to provide them with a good, happy, healthy life, *THAT* motive is pure, unselfish, giving.

Free eggs and dollar signs and hen flesh wouldn't flash across that person's mind! That person would do nothing that in any way compromises the hens: would NOT sell them ... introduce a rooster to the equation ... artificially inseminate them ... lock them up in a small dirty cage ... ignore their basic needs and desires ... kill them to eat them ... feed them to a snake or other animal ... or think of them/treat them as a profit center.

(In another post, I wrote that I thought it would be fine if someone rescued a horse then gave the horse an interesting, fun activity that earned money ONLY to pay for that horse's upkeep. But I didn't mean that this "payback" should be the MAIN MOTIVE in rescuing the horse or that the horse should be sold, killed or mistreated if/when unable to do that activity. To be consistent, I would have to say that if one were to sell unfertilized eggs to neighbors and friends rather than let the eggs rot -- but NOT with a profit in mind, other than to cover the care of the hens -- I don't have a problem with that, since egg-laying is natural to hens and cannot be stopped!) 

My point is that the highest motives and the most unselfish acts arising from those motives should be aligned, and would be in the hen example I cite.

And because this is the case, everyone would benefit: the hens, the adopters, the rescue (if the hens had been already rescued by an organization designed for this purpose), and, via ripple effect, the world. 

I am not omniscient (darn!), so I don't know whether the earth will -- or should -- one day have no hens bred by humans and for humans. But I DO know, though, that as we each strive to improve ourselves *BY* improving the lives of others, all species will be blessed. We will come closer to, and manifest, the spiritual ideal of one universal family linked by unselfed love. (Or at least that's my concept of the ideal!)

P.S. I second Alex's point, found above.

http://www.goveg.com/factoryFarming_Cows_Dairy.asp

Wow, a more emotionally manipulative, and disingenuous article, I don't think I have ever read. If I hear once more about the cows 'babies,' I'll be physically ill.

Yes, they're manipulating the cows systems to produce milk. Again, compared with a life in the wild, where cows would be eaten every day by predators, it's hardly torture.

Aside from forcibly inseminating the cows... Their utters are attached to machines that pump milk out of them all day (even when there is nothing coming out) this causes their utters to become soar and covered in open infected wounds. They then pump the cows with antibiotics to keep them alive so that we can get as much milk out of the cow as possible. They do not get any pain killers. There is no happy farmer milking the cows by hand into a bucket... in fact there is nothing happy about this process. We do this just so that we can drink the milk that was meant for the baby that we stole from the mother cow. I think that this is torture and yes cruel. wouldn't you say? I wouldn'twant my dog to go through something like that... would you? I dint think this is any different. If you have ever been around a cow you can see that they are very sweet animals they have the ability to feel pain and fear and to make relationships with humans and other cows.

If a cow were attacked in the wild and used for another animals food it would be killed instantly... it is an predators instinct to go for the main artery in the cows neck (which would cause instant death) it would not be suffering in pain for days or even months like they are when then are getting that "free room and board". I don't know if that makes things any better but I do know that we as humans have a choice to not drink the cows milk to make somewhat of a difference for the cow. A carnivorous animal does not have a choice to eat only vegetables in the wild. So it is nice to make a difference for the cows if we can. Clayton this message was in no way meant to be attacking or demeaning to you, it is simply informative. I didnt know any of this stuff until about a year ago and that is when I decided to make a change. If you don't know what really goes on how can you change it or why would you? So please don't take it the wrong way. I really just wanted to help you see why we would be excited if Dunkin Donuts were to become cruelty free. At this point it doesn't look like it will but we can all hope!!

Rebecca and many others who argue in the same manner,

First, you will lend more credibility to your argument if you spell correctly. Cows have udders and may develop sores.

Secondly, it is easy to find images and accounts of gross mistreatment of animals on farms. There is no question that it exists and it needs to be stopped. But as someone who has grown up around farms and seen how animals are treated when farmed in a non-industrial manner I find the many extremist arguments made detrimental to making progress. Why put an entire industry on the defensive instead of championing those who are implementing humane and sustainable practices and lobbying for better anti-cruelty laws and stricter enforcement of those laws. Farming is not inherently cruel. Not all meat and dairy is the product of inhumane practices. Let's demand standards instead of abolition. Polarization is rarely a start for effective problem solving.

Finally, the discussion of releasing cows into the wild is total nonsense and you all know it. As Clayton points out, releasing an animal that has been bred domestically for so long and lacks survival instincts in the wild is cruel and ridiculous. This is an argument that many activists will agree with and why so many sanctuaries do not release formerly captive animals directly into the wild.

I think this comment was very well written, and I agree with some points in it. However, I must agree with the part about animal farming not being inherently cruel. The meat industry, at least, is inherently cruel because it requires the killing of animals UNNECESSARILY. As in, we do not need to kill animals in order for us to survive/prosper/have good health. In my opinion, any unnecessary killing is morally incorrect.

How nice of you to check my spelling for me. Get ready for a few more typos....

I suggest that you both read Stephanie’s post from today: http://animalrights.change.org/blog/view/where_dairy_iisi_cruel_and_where_calves_and_slaughter_arent_ignored_take_2   I think it may help you to see why I and many other Animal Rights advocates feel the way we do about the use of animals for our personal gain. My first post describes the way Dairy Cows are treated on 98% of dairy farms in the US. As stated in my previous post I am not trying to argue or make anyone feel belittled, that is not my intention. I apologize for making anyone feel that way. To refrain from doing that any further I will recommend you to read the book "The Face on Your Plate" By Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson. It is based on all facts and is very informative. It explains the many many effects eating animals has on our body, our earth, global warming etc. I could talk about this all day but I don’t want you to correct my spelling any more... how embarrassing. 

Lisa - Where do you draw the line at killing? It is simply impossible for us to live WITHOUT killing. Whether it be a cow, pig, corn, soybeans, EVERYTHING we ingest is alive at one point or another. You seem awfully certain that plants don't mind dying, how do you know?

And for the record, I'm awfully happy with my status as an omnivore, I won't go full-on carnivore, but neither will I go herbivorous. Cows taste too good.

Clayton, I know the comment wasn't directed at me, but... the plant argument comes up a lot.  And until plants are proven to have brain stems, it's a difficult argument to win.

You know you're winning an argument when the other side has to resort to saying that plants can feel pain and have a cognitive desire to live. 

I don't know that they are offering the milk to "us".

We take it. Since most milk is factory farmed milk in the US, and the standard practice is to disallow the calf from getting any of its mother's breast milk (unless it has too much pus in it to sell, then still there is no bonding, the unsellable milk is fed to calves through tubes). I don't think the cow signed up to have their calves ripped from them.

Oh the old 'plant have pain' argument. Ok if it's true, the cow is eating vastly more weight in plants than will be provided by their flesh--so the humans are causing vastly more plant pain AND the animal pain instead of just eating a few plants, or harvesting their fruits--directly. Animals eaten by humans--so inefficient!

Clayton,

Sympathy like yours would suggest that we should be "providing room, board, and protection" to all those millions of human animals who suffer from malnutrition, genocide, and disease for only the cost of some labor. It seems to follow that we should travel to Africa, for example, and "rescue" those human animals currently suffering so terribly "in the wild." Indeed, let's bring them to the US and provide them a better life than they could have possibly imagined - they will repay us with their sweat.

If that would be unethical, think of the reason why, and then you will be able to understand why your argument doesn't make ethical sense.  

Your emotional rhetoric 'stealing my kids' is irrelevant to cows. They don't form the parental bonds that humans do. Humanizing them so is simply inaccurate and misleading.

And we CAN'T simply turn them back into the wild at this point, they are too domesticated, and would be totally ravaged by predators in a matter of months.

You're ignorance in these issues is realling appalling, clayton.  There is not one way is the damn world that every single cow is going to be turned loose this evening. Or the next day. By encourgaing vegetarianism and veganism, we are slowing the demand for these unethical products, and slowing the need for more cows to be bred.  The goal of veg*ism is NOT too turn every domesticated production animal loose but to get human intervention out of their lives, so that they can live as naturally as possible. 

And your other option is...? Set them free? Won't work, they're too tame, they'll be dead in weeks if not months from starvation, if not predators.

I'm rather doubtful of your 1/4 of cows are too sick to stand statistic also, where did you find it? If a cow is sick, my expectation would be that it is not introduced into the food supply.

And like it or not, people aren't going to stop eating beef, chicken or pork. I am all for efforts to make their lives more pleasant while they are with us, but the hope that people will stop eating them entirely is never going to happen (well, at least not until we develop pseduo-meat, that tastes and eats just like the real thing).

"If a cow is sick, my expectation would be that it is not introduced into the food supply."

You should be able to trust those providing you with food, but unfortunately, this isn't always the case.  You'll notice there are huge beef recalls - remember the Hallmark Meat Packing recall from 2008?  The problem is they are slaughtering downed animals because they're always looking for loopholes in the FDA regulations to maximize profit. 

Even if you claim you'll never be herbivorous, you can do a world of good for your own health by becoming aware of the process by which your food reaches your plate.

Clayton, you obviously didn't watch the video in the link I offered you. I quoted directly from the video. I think if you actually watch the video you won't be so doubtful.

Anyway, where is the justification behind your claim that "people aren't going to stop eating beef, chicken, or pork"? Do you think I haven't heard that a hundred times already? That's one of the first things every meat-eater says to veganism. Obviously you're going to think that because you don't even think *you* can stop eating cows, chickens, or pigs; in fact, you don't even agree with it. It wasn't very long ago that I was saying, "I'll never be vegetarian" or "I'll never be vegan." What did that prove? Basically, this claim of yours is just a redundant way of saying "I disagree; I don't think it should be done." Well, I disagree with you. Ta-da. I think that people *will* stop eating cows, chickens, and pigs because I have done it, I know it can be done, I believe in it, and I think the issue is clear enough that people will eventually decide to do it, too. And even if I didn't think everyone would stop eating animals, why would that stop me from advocating what I believe in?

Yeah, every vegan dessert or sweet treat I have tried is better than the animal product original, including cakes, cookies, marshmallows... But the thing with DD making the move is that they are already established with a large customer base, and they are currently using ALOT of egg/dairy (and so creating ALOT of suffering).

If there is a customer base that wants egg and diary-free donuts, they will come to you.

Hey Jamie, maybe in this world of ours where we can make everybody go vegan overnight (which raises the "problem" you mentioned above about what to do with the billions of nonhuman animals today) we could also bring peace to our world overnight, and stop global warming, poverty, and hunger. Of course this would be possible. I'm god and so are you, it would seem, according to the proponent of this "argument" against veganism.

Oooh! I used to love Quorn nuggets until I became a vegan. COK should start a Quorn campaign--I bet it would be easier than DD.

oh, and also, these benefits have the added bonus (for AR) that they specifically don't apply to merely going cage-free.