You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Unhappy About Happy Meat’ category.
Maybe I’ve been living under a slab of tofu (as the vegan saying goes), but I only just watched Chipotle’s “Back to the Start” commercial 3 days ago. If you haven’t seen it, watch the 2 minute, 20 second commercial here.
The reason “Back to the Start” was in the news is that it won top honors at the 21st Annual AICP Show (The Art & Technique of the American Commercial). Here is an excerpt from this article, which briefly describes the short film:
[Promoting the Chipotle Cultivate Foundation, "Back To The Start" was directed by Johnny Kelly of Nexus Productions, London, for Creative Artists Agency, Los Angeles. "Back To The Start" centers on a misguided farmer who slowly turns his family farm into an industrial animal factory before seeing the error of his ways and opting for a more sustainable future. The beautifully executed stop motion animation is all contained in one long panning "shot."]
The music is critical in setting the emotional tone of this short film. Country music legend Willie Nelson performs Coldplay’s 2003 (US) EP, “The Scientist.” The piano ballad is slow, hypnotic, and sorrowful. No surprise- the song lyrics are about the sadness and regret of love’s dissolution. It’s depressing.
Yet, when the music is played as background to the video animation, the song’s melancholy quality eventually gives way to a soothing and hopeful feel. (At least that seems to be the intent.)
As mentioned above, the animation tells the story of a farmer’s progression from modest and pasture-based animal farming, to institutional and intensive, and then back to small again.
Over the chirping of birds in the opening frame, we’re introduced to the farmer– with wife and baby– and his one pig.
The one pig turns into several, and the barns go up. There are cows, too. Everything expands. The animals go inside.
Then, we leave the farm and the green trees to enter the factory. We see the dark contrast of uniform pink pigs against sterile grey metal. We see mechanized meat production and semi trucks.
It all turns chilly and dark when we see the forlorn, sleepless farmer reflecting on what his farm has become. He reaches a point that communicates, “Enough is enough,” and he starts opening up the animal enclosures. Barren Earth returns to green grass and trees.
In the final scene, the farmer loads a wooden crate into a Chipotle Mexican Grill truck with chickens pecking nearby. He joins hands with his wife and stands with his now-adult child and one pig.
The music fades out with a sign: “Cultivate a Better World”
The lyrics used in the animation, from “The Scientist,” are:
I was just guessing at numbers and figures
Pulling the puzzles apart
Questions of science, science and progress
Don’t speak as loud as my heart
Nobody said it was easy
It’s such a shame for us to part
Nobody said it was easy
No one ever said it would be so hard
I’m going back to the start.
———————————————————————————————————————
I think some would feel comforted by the ending. I am unsettled by it.
I’ll state the obvious first. This is an animation about rejecting factory farms/CAFOs and intensive animal agriculture practices. It’s about improving welfare for “farm” animals. The expressed mission of the Chipotle Cultivate Foundation is:
“…creating a more sustainable and healthful food supply and to raising awareness concerning food issues. This is realized through the support of family farmers and their communities, educators and programs that teach younger generations about food matters, along with support for ranchers and farmers who are working to develop more sustainable practices.”
Few people– outside of industry itself– will deny that factory farm practices treat animals terribly. For those who consider industrial-scale animal agriculture unacceptable at best, and abhorrent at worst, this animation clearly points to “a way out.”
There are 3 stakeholders in the animal agriculture scenario: farmer, consumer, and animal. Farmers and consumers share the responsibility for taking action to “Cultivate a Better World.” The actions that farmers and consumers take determines the outcome for animals.
When the farmer decides to release his animals from their confinement, the implication remains that the animals will still die. We must assume that the crate he loads onto the truck contains the flesh of his pastured animals.
The farmer’s “way out” is going “back to the start,” or back to the way farming “used to be.” The farmer has his own set of interests. I don’t question that one of the farmer’s interests would be improved welfare for animals. Better treatment is better treatment.
For meat consumers, I think that the short film succeeds in generating feelings of relief and hopefulness. Too much relief?
I still remember my own feelings of distress when I learned about modern meat production. I was horrified. I felt naive: How could I not know what was going on? I was angry at the people who would let this kind of brutality continue. And I felt guilty when realizing that, if I bought animal products, it meant I would continue to support cruel practices.
Like the farmer who says, “Enough is enough,” people who feel horrified, naive, angry and guilty desperately want and need their own “way out.” Who can blame them? What decent person wouldn’t seek such deliverance?
People may opt for so-called humane, grass-fed, free-range, pasture-based, sustainable, and organic animal products, but I think we need to discuss where that really takes us as a species. Is going back in time– i.e. “back to the start”– really going in the right direction?
For animals, certainly better treatment is better treatment. But from the animal’s perspective, is it acceptable? Should the farmer’s pastured pig feel a sense of relief when he is stunned, stuck, and bled out?
There was a time when I felt good about purchasing “happy meats.” I didn’t feel bad, I didn’t feel neutral, I actually felt good. The phrase “happy meat” usually refers to the animal being happy before he or she is killed, but I’ve come to the realization that “happy” actually describes the consumer.
I’m no longer happy about “happy meat.” I’m unsettled. And I think we can “Cultivate a Better World” in an even better way. I’ll use the Chairman of Chipotle Cultivate Foundation, Steve Ells’ own words:
“Delicious food can be produced without exploiting the farmers, the animals, or the environment. Chipotle has proven this to be true, but Chipotle is only one small part of the solution. Our goal now should be to have all food produced as sustainably as possible.”
I think his words, “Delicious food can be produced without exploiting the farmers, the animals or the environment” is spot on. After that, he lost me. Chipotle is not promoting Veganism. I must ask: Isn’t killing a form of exploitation?
———————————————————————————————————————
I’m going to re-interpret the commercial’s ending, starting with the chilly blue frame:
When I see the farmer hit rock bottom, I see his “lightbulb” moment. I see the farmer change his whole view about animals. He realizes that “his” pigs don’t really “belong” to him at all. He recognizes that each animal is an individual who deserves autonomy. He empathizes like never before.
The farmer admits that it’s unnecessary to eat animals. He becomes motivated to farm plants, not animals.
Then, I see the farmer really liberating the animals. I see animals on the green pasture of sanctuaries. I see animals being cared for without being exploited.
Finally, I see the farmer loading a crate of onions, peppers, corn and beans into the back of the Chipotle Mexican Grill truck. I see him join hands with his wife with the satisfaction of knowing that he really IS cultivating a better world.
The pig is safe.
“But there are farms in this country, and more of them all the time, where animals lead very happy lives, and have one bad day.” -Michael Pollan
Michael Pollan made that statement on the February 1, 2011 Oprah episode, “Oprah and 378 Staffers Go Vegan: The One-Week Challenge.”
Since the show aired, I haven’t stopped thinking about that phrase: One bad day.
Getting slaughtered for no good reason certainly qualifies as a bad day.
But, does Michael Pollan really believe the fantasy that animals raised and “harvested” on small farms only have one bad day?
When a heifer or cow gives birth and her baby is taken away…does that count as a bad day? When she gets her supernumerary teats removed or her udders “flamed” (to remove udder hair) does that count as a bad day? When a cow gets painful mastitis or laminitis, does that add more days to the “bad” column?
For “beef” cattle…Is the day of castration a bad day? Disbudding? Branding? For pigs…Is the day of tooth/tusk trimming, ear tagging, tail docking, and castration a bad day? Just because it’s “routine husbandry practice” doesn’t mean that it’s not painful.
Now– and this might be difficult, but let’s try– let’s estimate the number of “bad days” for egg laying hens, for chickens raised for meat (i.e “broilers”) and for turkeys, all within the “Certified Humane Raised & Handled” label. You can download the actual Standards documents here.
“Certified Humane” Eggs…
- “The Animal Care Standards for Laying Hens do not require that hens have access to range.” (2009 Standards Manual: Egg Laying Hens)
- Minimum stocking density requirements: 1 square foot to 1 1/2 square feet per hen. (E 16: Stocking Density).
- Cannibalism is a common problem for “cage-free” housing (i.e. “one big cage” instead of separate battery cages).
- Beak trimming/tipping is permitted preventatively in “flocks that are susceptible to outbreaks of cannibalism.” (H 6: Physical alterations)
- Other problems: significant feather loss and fowl mite infestation.
“Certified Humane” Chickens…
- “The Animal Care Standards for Chickens Used in Broiler Production do not require that chickens have access to range.” (2009 Standards Manual: Chickens)
- Maximum stocking density = 6 lbs per square foot.
- “Broilers” are susceptible to leg deformities, lameness (difficulty walking), and hock burn/breast blisters.
How many bad days are we up to? Or– for birds– does all this simply add up to one bad life? Humane?
Look…let’s stop pretending that animal agriculture– of the variety that Michael Pollan likes to promote (i.e. “happy meat”)– is a “one bad day” scenario. One can only make such a statement out of ignorance.
BUT…Even if animals only endured one bad day, I still believe that’s one bad day too many. Why kill if it’s unnecessary? We don’t need to eat eggs, chickens and turkeys. We don’t need to eat pigs and cows. We don’t need to consume milk from cows and cheese from goats or sheep.
How would you like it if someone decided to kill you? Is that okay? After all, you “led a good life, and it’s just one bad day.” I don’t see how it can be justifiable to treat animals differently than we would like ourselves treated. Animals value their lives just like we do. No one wants to have bad days, and certainly not bad days that can be prevented.
[You can hear Michael Pollan’s statement with your own ears by listening to Episode 46 of the Coexisting With Nonhuman Animals podcast. J.W. provides excellent commentary on that Oprah show episode. Michael Pollan’s statement is 1 hour, 2 minutes, 30 seconds into the podcast.]
I did a home safety assessment for a patient at work today. I went with her & her husband to their rural home that includes a small herd (i.e. <25) of cows raised for meat. Having never been in this particular situation before, I was keenly interested to learn everything I could about the fate of those animals. I watched the cows innocently & peacefully grazing on grass as my patient was more than happy to answer all my questions.
By anyone’s definition, this is about as “humane” as an animal farm can get. The bulls are not castrated, so the breeding is natural. The cows have a lovely green pasture with a beautiful view of trees & mountains in a location w/ a mild climate. A mobile unit comes to the farm to slaughter the animals on site. The animals are killed when not much more than ~18 months (“so that the meat doesn’t get too tough”…and older animals are only “good” for hamburger.) The animal’s body is hauled off to a butcher shop in a nearby city for about a week of aging (she called it “hanging”) & then processing into the various meat cuts.
This will be the last herd that my patient & her husband will have because they are both elderly & it’s getting to be too much work for them. She also admitted that for health reasons everyone in her family is eating less beef so it is clearly not a necessary food source. She clearly has a certain fondness for her animals & yet her speaking tone was matter of fact and clinical.
I found the whole experience quite unsettling. Since going vegan, I have never needed confirmation, but yet being there confirmed in my mind that I am on the right track. If this little family farm is AS good as it gets, I still don’t want any part of it. I looked at the eyes of those animals. I put myself in their situation. I can only come to the conclusion that those animals don’t deserve to be suddenly killed when it is so unnecessary to kill them. It is unnecessary to eat them. And they really are babies…18 months. Cows can live to be 20 years or more if given the chance.
More Q’s I have: What happens when the mobile slaughter unit drives up? What is the process then? I didn’t have time to find out all the answers to every question that I later thought of. What happens when one cow is harmed..killed? When do the other cows know that they, too, will be harmed? I still want to know more. Nevertheless, I reflect on this interaction without tears, without anger. I am disturbed by it because it is so unfair. So unjust. But I am glad that no more animals on this particular farm will be bred just to be killed. I hope that more people will go vegan.
(Written April 5, 2012)
An Essay on Consistency…
Sooner or later, people who abstain from consuming animal products will listen to friends, acquaintances, or family members declare, “I only buy humane meat,” or “I only buy free-range eggs,” or “I only buy organic milk.” These are the actual words spoken.
“I only buy humane meat, etc” could be one person’s response to some horrific undercover video footage or another’s solution to factory farming. The health-conscious say this in the context of minimizing exposure to rBGH, E-Coli O157:H7 or BSE. Environmentalists might include the word “sustainable.” Followers of Michael Pollan make this statement in support of the family farmer.
When I hear “I only buy humane meat, etc,” I also hear the following unspoken messages: “Hey look, I’m doing something,” “I care about the animals, too,” and “I recognize there is a problem.” I would like to respond to both the spoken words and the unspoken messages.
“I only buy humane meat.” Really? So when you go out to restaurants, what do you order? What kind of pizza do you get? On the road, do you occasionally opt for the convenience of a fast-food restaurant drive-through? In the grocery store, what choices do you make when buying canned soups or frozen entrees? Do you always check labels?
“I only buy free-range eggs.” “I only buy organic milk.” Ok. When you go out for breakfast, what do you have? Do you ever get a pastry at the coffee shop? Do you ask your barista about the milk in your espresso? How about an ice cream cone on a summer day? What about the cheese in your sandwich, taco, or salad? Grocery shelves are lined with baked, packaged, and processed foods containing egg and milk ingredients. Is what you buy free-range and organic? Are you that selective?
These are the types of questions that come to my mind when I hear someone say, “I only buy humane meat, etc.” My first reaction is, “I’m not sure about that.” Chances are, you don’t only buy humane meat, etc. If you truly did, you would be reading labels, asking questions about ingredients, and eating like vegans do nearly all of the time because the vast majority of animal-derived foods do not proclaim to be “humane,” “free-range,” “organic,” ‘”sustainable,” or “grass-fed.”
“But,” you say, “I didn’t mean EVERYTHING I buy is humane/free-range/organic/etc.” Exactly. My point is that consistency is lost. Being true to your own word is meaningless. Whether you say you “only buy humane meat” because of the animal cruelty videos, the factory farms, your health, the environment, the family farmers or some other reason, please take a critical look at whether you are actually doing it. If you say you do something, then do it consistently.
My second reaction when I hear “I only buy humane meat, etc” is, “So, what?” What do labels like “humane,” “free-range,” “organic” (as applied to meat and milk), and “sustainable” really mean? Do you know? Do you want to know? What do you think they mean? What are you hoping they mean? Why do you care?
The first answer to the question “What do the labels mean?” is “Not much.” The second answer is, “It doesn’t matter.” “Humane” doesn’t matter because unnecessary killing can’t be humane. “Free-range” doesn’t matter because it’s still slavery. “Organic milk” doesn’t matter because cow’s milk belongs to baby cows, not humans. “Grass-fed” doesn’t matter because grass is what the cows would be eating if we would just leave them alone in the first place.
None of these labels matter to me. Animals should not be the property of humans. Animals are not things, they are sentient beings. Animals belong to themselves. They deserve the basic right to live their own lives. The problem is not “how” we use animals, the problem is “that” we use animals.
When you say “I only eat humane meat, etc,” is that really what you do? Is that really what you want to do? Or, are you actually just saying, “Hey look, I’m doing something,” or “I care about the animals, too,” or “I recognize there is a problem.”? If you indeed want to do something, then act. If you do care about the animals, then really care. Go vegan. If you do recognize there is a problem, then don’t deny it. Learn more about it, take action, and be consistent.
In closing, being consistent does not make you “radical” or “extreme,” although people who abstain from consuming all animal products are often called these things. Acting consistently on principle simply shows integrity. Being consistent demonstrates conviction and the willingness to stand up for something that is important, no matter what. Consistency in action is necessary for positive change. Be consistent, yes. But please leave the animals alone.
I only buy humane meat. It is 100% plant-derived. It is humane meat.
(Picture taken while mountain biking in Roslyn, WA, Sept 24, 2011)
