Dairy and Eggs
Dear TreeHugger, Get Your Egg Facts Straight
Published February 05, 2009 @ 10:30AM PT
It's time for the latest edition of "What the hell, TreeHugger?!" in the ongoing saga that is my love-hate relationship with the site.
Dear TreeHugger,
I've considered you a friend for a while now. I've been gratefully reading along almost since your launch, happy to have you supply me with lots of fascinating, useful eco information in one place.
But I see that one of your writers has today referred to, yet again, "happy cage free hens that get to play outside and frolic with the other farm animals." Read my freakin' blog, TreeHuggers! I just came down on you like a ton of tofu for such uninformed remarks less than a month ago ("No Such Thing as Humane Cage-Free Eggs (Still)").
You remark with sarcasm that Disney-branded eggs are "just what we needed." But TreeHugger--perpetuation of a myth that is sooo easily discredited as a myth if you do a bit of research (or, umm, start reading my blog) isn't something we need either. This "frolicking" idea that you're selling is just as silly and deceptive as what Disney's selling. The irony of your remarks is actually painful: "Sometimes I think that the world is becoming more sane, that people are beginning to understand where food comes from." Me too, TreeHugger, me too. But then even writers for green, supposedly knowledgeable, research-capable Web sites spout nonsense like this.
Not only are you buying into the easily discredited myth that cage-free and free-range eggs are "cruelty-free," but you furthermore aren't even distinguishing properly between "cage-free" and "free-range." They're both loosely defined, and neither comes close to proving "humane" treatment or happy lives for the hens, but still, at least acknowledge that "cage-free" is not "free-range": it's generally a giant, dark shed filled to the max with debeaked birds living in misery and pain (you know, the ones who weren't killed shortly after hatching via suffocation or being ground alive because they were unfortunate enough to be male). The idea that "cage-free" hens "play outside and frolic with the other farm animals" doesn't even border on delusional; it is delusional.
But as annoyed as I am by your up-til-now devotion to and perpetuation of the myth, I do believe that you care and that you can change your egg-glorifying ways. So for your edification, TreeHugger, I again provide links to past posts on this issue:
- No Such Thing as Humane Cage-Free Eggs (Still)
- Happy Cage-Free Eggs: Just What I Was Afraid Of
- Untruths and Omissions on Oprah
- Peaceful Prairie Restoration of the "Free-Range" Hens
- What the Oprah Show Didn't Tell You About Cage-Free and Free-Range
Love,
Stephanie
The Slaughterhouse Is Always the Only Exit for Dairy Cows
Published January 30, 2009 @ 04:41AM PT
Readers: I've updated this post roughly 237 times since it first went live on the site. I blame the fact that I wrote it while running on no sleep, but you're still entitled to roll your eyes at me and consider me annoying and unprofessional and unorganized for the day--I'll understand. But if you read this before 8:50 CST, there have been numerous edits, including paragraphs added in various places throughout. Sorry for any confusion experienced by readers who've witnessed this chaos in the last couple hours. Please feel free to snicker at me while I go take a nap.
----
Many people consume dairy without really registering what they're consuming or how the cows are made to produce it--or what happens to the cows when their bodies wear out, and they stop producing enough to be profitable. What happens is the slaughterhouse. The idea that as long as we stop eating meat, no animals are intentionally killed for our diet just isn't true (the egg industry's hens and millions of just-hatched male chicks killed are another topic in this area).
But when the dairy industry started floating around the idea of "culling" a number of its cows because of current financial problems, some people's write-ups referred to the "poor cows" and talked about how the beef industry's effort to block the killing (to keep the dairy cow flesh from flooding the market) was some kind of win for the dairy cows too. But there's no win for dairy cows. This particular slaughter not happening won't change their difficult lives or stop their eventual slaughter tomorrow, next week, or next year. Read on.
----
Last night, Google Reader informed me that Tom Laskawy, filling in for the vacationing Ezra Klein at The American Prospect, had posted about the business troubles being faced by the dairy industry. He remarked thus:
For those who need a handy case study on the insanity of our agricultural subsidy system, I give you the dairy industry's solution to falling prices caused by a "milk glut": kill the cows. Cows aren't assembly line robots who can be switched off when their output isn't selling. They need to be milked every day. So when you have a subsidy regime that tends to encourage over-expansion when times are good (to cash in on high prices) and over-production when times are bad (through payments that offset losses and provide an incentive for farmers to attempt to recoup as much as possible), you apparently discover that the only exit runs through the slaughterhouse. . . .
Someone brought this post to the attention of my fellow vegan and animal advocate Erik Marcus too, and Erik considers it a "simply fantastic post." But I respectfully disagree. Erik and I are focused on different aspects of the post, I suppose, but putting aside the fact that I completely, whole-heartedly agree that the U.S. agricultural subsidy system is absurd, I can't, from the perspective of an animal advocate, call any post "fantastic" that laments the idea that these current "poor cows" (as they are later referred to in the TAP post) could be killed for financial reasons now while seemingly ignoring that all these cows and future cows are going to be killed for financial reasons at some point regardless.
Indeed, the title of Erik's post praising and linking to the TAP piece is "Dairy: Subsidizing Slaughter"--and that's exactly my point and problem with Laskawy's post and those that resemble it. All of the dairy industry is always inherently tied to slaughter--both the slaughter of "spent" dairy cows and the slaughter of baby calves, the byproducts of dairy production. The dairy-slaughter connection is the norm, not a situation unique to this proposed slaughter or this economic climate.
One post to which Laskawy links jests that dairy cows are "cheering" because the beef industry has worked to stop the mass slaughter and because they now happily "get to" continue producing milk, as if that's something that benefits them at all, and as if they're doing it in natural, willing circumstances rather than being forced to do it. Another warns that "cows should be worried" about this situation--because there's nothing bad happening to them now? Because they're not going to be killed anyway? Objection to or dismay at killing them now rather than killing them later, as if killing them now is somehow worse, when their lives are certainly nothing to romanticize, reminds me somewhat of the argument that we must keep breeding and killing cows for dairy (and flesh) because if we didn't, cows might stop existing--and never existing at all is apparently somehow worse than living in exploitation, having your babies continually taken away from you, and then dying a violent, premature death.
Anyway, moving on . . . I give Laskawy major (and sincere) kudos for referring to the cows as "who" instead of "that" in his post--this may seem minor to some, but I've seen and heard very few non-AR people make that language choice--but killing dairy cows for financial reasons is not a Big Dairy or subsidy issue. It's a dairy issue--period. And it exhausts me to see people lamenting the fact that all these cows could be killed, with what appears to be at least some degree of concern for the cows themselves, when the unavoidable truth is that these cows are all headed to the slaughterhouse at ages only a fraction of their natural life span no matter what. In fact, as horrific as the killing process is in slaughterhouses, the majority of dairy cows live in absolute misery, and they all must suffer through repeated cycles of grief as they are impregnated and then stripped of their calf almost immediately after birth, over and over again, and only the rarest of the rare escape the industry and make it to a sanctuary. So I can't say that I'd fight to allow these cows to suffer a few more years before being killed. The ones killed even more prematurely than originally planned because of financial troubles arguably would, in many cases, actually be the luckier ones (luckier--not lucky).
And I obviously agree with Laskawy that cows are not "assembly line robots," but I have to ask--isn't that essentially how humans treat them by turning them into milk machines? Again, not a Big Dairy problem, but a dairy problem. Forcibly input materials (semen) into machine (cow); let machine do its work (gestation and birthing); remove unwanted waste or byproducts (calves); retrieve and package final product for sale (milk). I don't care if it's subsidized or not. I don't care if it's a factory farm or a "family farm." It's all the same. The exploitation is the same, the treatment of sentient, loving, and grieving animals as mere machines is the same, and the trip to and horrors of the slaughterhouse are the same. Well-meaning dairy consumers who, as was my experience for a long time, just don't realize yet, here is your periodic reminder: dairy cows and their calves suffer exploitation and pain and misery too; dairy cows and their calves experience the nightmare of slaughterhouses too; there's nothing humane about dairy. And if the thought of killing them in bad economic times bothers us, the thought of killing them in good economic times should bother us just as much.
Photos: Top, dairy cow, Flickr; Center, mother and newborn calf before humans tear them apart, following birth-on-display at Virginia's state fair; Bottom, Dylan, calf rescued one day before scheduled for auction & slaughter for veal, current resident of Woodstock Farm Animal Sanctuary
Mother and Son: The Way It Should Be But Hardly Ever Is
Published January 21, 2009 @ 01:05PM PT
I wanted to embed a video for you here, but technical difficulties prevented it, so I'm going to supply you with links instead. Follow this link to have the video open in Windows Media Player on a large screen, or follow this link to see the smaller video embedded in the related news article. (Really, watch the video. The rest of this post will make more sense, and there are adorable sights that I just can't describe.)
Now for the less adorable part. If Hillside Animal Sanctuary hadn't rescued Clover, a dairy cow, one of two things would have happened, as noted by the sanctuary worker in the video:
1. Because there was too much pus in her milk (and yes, a fair amount of pus is legally allowed and is present in all the cow's milk consumed by humans), and no farmer businessman is going to keep around an animal a machine from whom which he can't profit, she would have been killed, and the calf she was carrying would have died along with her. (I don't know enough about this particular story to know with certainty whether Clover then would have been turned into hamburger, which does come mostly from "spent" dairy cows.)
2. Or she would have given birth before being killed, and her sweet calf would have been taken away almost immediately to be turned into veal.
Luckily, neither of these things happened in this case. But as we watch the news story on Clover and her unexpected (unexpected by the sanctuary, that is) calf, we have to take note of that playful, sweet-faced calf. He very easily could have been yet another victim of the dairy/veal industry. Clover and her son Bramble will live out natural lives now, together, but most are not so lucky.
-----
(Thanks to Alison of the heart2heart list for providing the alert to this story.)
No Such Thing as Humane Cage-Free Eggs (Still)
Published January 16, 2009 @ 08:32AM PT
Today TreeHugger has up a post praising cage-free eggs and the fact that many of them now carry the "American Humane Certified(TM) label, showing that they're from producers that practice humane treatment of their animals." (This post comes as a result of a press release from the certifying organization.)
Sigh. Here we go again. (TreeHugger, sometimes I do love you, but sometimes I do not; this week, apparently, it's a mix--sorry.)
Let's revisit a post from a couple weeks ago about how "humane" such humane standards really are: "Proving Humane Certifications Meaningless." I wrote that post after this same certification group bestowed its prized label on a veal operation--and an enormous, crate-using veal operation at that. I suggest reading or scanning that post and then coming back here.
And now let's talk specifically about the eggs. First, we have to remember again what "cage-free" in general actually means. It does not mean birds running around outside or dust-bathing or playing or living a natural life. In most cases, it means birds crammed into dark sheds their whole lives, in conditions not much better than battery cage operations.
And what are the truths about both cage-free and free-range? Painful, mutilating, long-impacting debeaking? Still done. Mass, cruel killing of all male chicks--250 million per year in the United States alone--at the hatcheries where egg-laying hens come from? Still done. Violent, frightening, painful slaughter when the hens stop laying enough eggs to be profitable? Still done.
Someone please tell me what's "certified humane" about any of that.
It should also be noted that some of the companies whose cage-free eggs are listed as "humane" by this certification program are the same companies that have been caught committing the worst abuses against hens in their caged operations. And we're seriously to believe that the birds get dramatically better treatment in such companies' other facilities, just because they're crammed into sheds rather than cages?
In my lacto-ovo vegetarian days, I bought and ate free-range and cage-free eggs. I ate a lot of them. I honestly believed that my purchases and my diet were not causing any harm, and I felt good about my choices, so I don't judge anyone for holding that same belief and making that same choice before he or she knows the realities; you can't be blamed when you simply don't know. But once we do know, we have to recognize that if our concern is more for the animals than just for what makes us feel better, the compassionate, humane choice is to stop buying and consuming eggs, not just to pay more for a product that still involves such obvious and serious cruelties.
See the following related posts for more information and perspectives and--in case you don't follow these links and see this article featured in one of the posts--also be sure to read the essay "A Rare Glimpse Inside A 'Free-Range' Egg Facility" and its two firsthand accounts of visits to two different cage-free/free-range farms, one of them certified organic:
- Happy Cage-Free Eggs: Just What I Was Afraid Of
- Untruths and Omissions on Oprah
- Peaceful Prairie Restoration of the "Free-Range" Hens
- What the Oprah Show Didn't Tell You About Cage-Free and Free-Range
----
Photo of rescued "free-range" hen courtesy of Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary post "Coming Home"
On Lactose Intolerance and Absorbing Calcium
Published January 13, 2009 @ 02:00PM PT
Check out the following informative post extracts from the blogs Before Wisdom and Vegans of Color, and see the original posts for more details.
"Lactose Intolerance Is Not a Disease"
Typically when someone tells you they are lactose intolerant they do it with a mournful look on their face. . . . The problem is that we have been conditioned to think of lactose intolerance as if it were a disease when in fact it is a normal process of life.
Mammals only need to produce the enzyme lactase (the digestive enzyme that breaks down lactose) until they are weaned. For humans this is somewhere between 2-4 years old. After that we are officially weaned from our mother’s milk and ready to get our complete nutrients from solid foods. . . . 70% of the world’s population is lactose intolerant. With a greater incidence among people of African descent, Mediterranean decent, Native Americans and Asians. . . .
I believe it’s time to turn the tide and change the way we think and talk about lactose intolerance. When someone mentions the fact they or someone they know is lactose intolerant our response should be “Great! So is over 70% of the world’s population” and then explain why. For me, after all the extremely compelling reasons to go vegan were presented to me the one thing that stood out to me the most (and what is ultimately the reason I went vegan) was what an unnatural process it is for an adult mammal to drink the milk of another species. . . .
And now that you've read that post, you're ready to read about vegetable calcium sources:
Absorbing CalciumMany vegetables are actually better for preventing bone loss than cow’s milk. Preventing osteoporosis is about more than calcium intake. It is also about calcium absorption and the calcium in many vegetables is more absorbable than calcium from cow’s milk. A number of vegetables also have more calcium per calorie than dairy milk and vegetables have other nutrients for bone health that dairy milk does not.
Highlights from page 103 [of Brenda Davis's "Becoming Vegetarian"]:
Cow’s Milk
1 cup - 300 mg - 32% absorbed, 96 mg netTurnip Greens, cooked
1 cup - 198 mg - 52% absorbed, 102 mg netBok Choy, cooked
1 cup - 158 mg - 53% absorbed, 84 mg netMustard Greens, cooked
1 cup - 128 mg - 58% absorbed, 74 mg netKake, cooked
1 cup - 122 mg - 49% absorbed, 60 mg netBroccoli, cooked
1 cup - 70 mg - 61% absorbed, 42 mg netTofu, made with a calcium based coagulant
1 cup - 516 mg - 31% absorbed, 160 mg net
Introducing Fowl Play
Published December 22, 2008 @ 07:51AM PT
Over the course of a couple weeks, I received messages about the upcoming documentary Fowl Play from half a dozen people and sources. And now it's my turn to share it with you. If you meander over to the Web site, you can view several scenes from the film in addition to the trailer.
It looks well done, and I was relieved to see that although the film's primary focus appears to be on what happens in factory egg farms, it also makes a point of going inside a "cage-free" facility and clarifying that these operations aren't humane either. And the scene (available on the site) showing what happens to newborn chicks at the hatchery is, of course, representative of what happens throughout the egg industry, not just in the factory farms.
You can view the trailer below before heading over to the film's site to see other scenes, including one documenting the truly impressive language skills of chickens and another telling the story of Hope, a hen who'd been left for dead in a trash can inside an egg farm shed but who was rescued during an investigation and provided with veterinary care. She ended up thriving at a farm sanctuary, and we get the joy of seeing her and other animals enjoying life and the company of each other. Check out the scene on cage-free facilities as well. (Unfortunately, the voice distortion makes it difficult to understand what the undercover investigator is saying sometimes in the cage-free scene, but you can probably figure out most of what he's getting at just from the images.)
Update: I may have to take back that bit about watching the trailer here. I seem to have only two options--set it up to play automatically or have it not play at all. Even if I'm not able to fix this, you can still go directly to the film's site to see the trailer there.
Trailer:
From the Glossary: Dairy and the "Rape Rack"
Published December 01, 2008 @ 11:28AM PT
Because there are practices and ideas that everyone in this animal-exploiting world should know about and understand, I am periodically going to feature terms that are defined in this blog's (non-comprehensive) glossary.
First up is a term that gives rise to horrible mental images, and unfortunately, the "tool" is exactly what it sounds like:
rape rack. The brutal, but accurate, industry term referring to the contraptions in which cows and pigs are restrained while they are forcibly inseminated.
Cows do not automatically produce milk year-round. They produce milk for the same reason and in the same situation as humans--after giving birth, to feed their beloved young. The only way to keep a cow lactating is to repeatedly impregnate her. The cow gives birth; the calf is ripped away to become veal or a future dairy cow, causing both mother and child great despair; the milk intended for the calf is taken for humans; and the cow is impregnated again. It's a horrible cycle, with physical pain and emotional distress involved at every stage.
And what was particularly disturbing and infuriating for me this morning was the number of images I found of women standing behind cows, with their arms shoved up inside the animal (in artificial insemination, the inseminator forces his or her arm up the rectum of the cow, to push on the cervix, while inseminating the cow with the other hand), smiling cheerfully at the camera, as if this was a practice they were happy to be a part of, a practice that was humorous and fun. And then there was the photo of a man doing the job, with the following cheeky caption: "I'll give her some wine and send her some flowers tomorrow." Incredible.
Cow's milk taken for humans doesn't do a body good--not yours, not the cow's, and not the calf's.
