Eat Meat if You Must, But Please - Please - Don't Swallow the Bullshit

The latest Time magazine featured an article defending the "Happy Meat" craze by Josh Ozersky, foodie, food historian, author of The Hamburger: A History and frequent contributor to a plethora of magazines, including the aforementioned. At least Ozersky acknowledges early in the article that his foes have a legitimate point. As he writes:

I get the point made by animal-rights activists. Their primary arguments (that eating other animals is unnecessary, that their lives are as valuable as ours, that eating meat has catastrophic effects on our environment) are, to be honest, unanswerable. I admit that. I just don't want to stop eating meat. In fact, I want to eat even more of it than I do, if that's possible.

But Ozersky (I also tip my hat to him for having the honesty to admit in this article that Tony Soprano is his hero) goes on to admit that he won't eat meat that "comes from mistreated animals." He encourages his readers to do likewise.

Vegans and vegetarians, he says, "miss the point. People aren't going to start eating carrots three times a day. It's just not going to happen. So if you're going to eat meat, you should try to eat meat from small farms, or from larger producers who have demonstrated to the world that they are committed to cruelty-free production." He praises the efforts of animal behaviorist Temple Grandin and the industries that have implemented her suggestions to reduce animal stress on the slaughter floor.

Then comes this:

I buy cage-free eggs at the supermarket. I cook meat at home made by producers I trust. I don't approach companies like Smithfield or Tyson to sponsor my meat events. I would support any politician, of either party, who stood up for expanding the USDA's role so that it included at least cursory inspections of all farms where animals are raised for food. And likewise with any state legislator who would enforce state anticruelty laws for livestock the same as they do for cute puppies. Since neither of these things will ever happen, I try to lend support to industry initiatives like the National Pork Board's Pork Quality Assurance-Plus program, Whole Foods' animal-welfare system, and even Burger King's landmark 2007 commitment (which they say is still in place) to buy at least some cage-free eggs and farrowing-free pork.

The article rings with a self-congratulatory "aren't I a liberal" tone from start to finish. Yet, like all "Happy Meat" myth-making, it starts to fall apart under closer scrutiny.

It is time to make one thing absolutely, emphatically, 100% clear: There is no such thing as "Happy Meat." Meat, as the title of the 1985 album by English rock band The Smiths indicates, is murder. Nothing more, nothing less.

You can get rid of gestation crates. You can stop beating animals mercilessly. You can quit docking the tails of piglets. You can let animals roam around outside in the sunlight, graze in open fields, enjoy the temporary illusion of freedom.

But in the end, the very thing that makes the cruel producers criminal is the same thing that makes the word "humane" in the "Happy Meat" movement a joke. It's called Death by Exsanguination. Death, literally, by bleeding to death.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that an animal that is rendered unconscious by carbon dioxide before being bled to death is somehow better off than an animal prepared rendered motionless by captive bolt, gunshot or electrical stunning.

The most brutal, the most ghastly, the most inhumane and horrific element of meat production is the murder of the animal.

That isn't to say that it's not awful to witness livestock getting beaten or mutilated or harmed while they're fully conscious. That isn't to say it isn't heartbreaking to see an animal in an extreme state of stress or anxiety. It is better to see a pig calm before being murdered than agitated and screaming.

But in it all - and at the end of it all - is death. Bloodletting. Murder. Butchery. Serial killing. Whatever you want to call it.

Omnivores such as Ozersky, who feel a sense of moral outrage at the mistreatment of animals, have one big blind spot. The severing of veins or arteries. Or the piercing of the heart. The draining of the blood. The actual taking of the life.

I believe these "carnists" (as Ozersky calls himself) feel guilty when they watch animals being beaten or harmed or mutilated videos shot by Mercy for Animals or PETA (or insert your group/individual here) because somewhere, in the inner recesses of their minds, they understand that this horrible, degrading, stressful treatment is occurring at the very end of the animal's life.

If you've read this Blog in the past, you'll notice I rarely (if ever) invoke the Nazis, only because their crimes were so uniquely heinous that I am loathe to compare anyone to them. Sadly, sloppy Nazi analogies abound. However, Adolf Hitler, in one of his more insightful moments, wrote about what he called "the big lie" in his long 1925 rant Mein Kampf. It is worth quoting here because his words are applicable today.

All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

"Happy Meat" is one of the Big Lies of today. There is no happy meat because there is no happy death. No living, sentient being goes willingly to become food for someone else, especially someone who does not need meat to live a happy, healthy, high-quality life.

Let's make it perfectly clear. Meat is death. It is destruction. It's mass murder. The production of meat entails a level of suffering beyond human comprehension. The victims of meat production, whether they live in dark and cold gestation crates or run freely outside, ultimately face a fate unimaginable to people. The very fact that it is unimaginable is what enables us, as human beings, to engage in all forms of denial. As Mark Twain rightfully pointed out: "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt."

"Happy Meat" is a swindle. A con job. A multimillion dollar effort to bamboozle the public, to assuage mass guilt, to fool people into believing that the "product" wrapped in shrink wrap and styrofoam is delightful and will make our lives better.

Who among us, except for a tiny handful of lifelong vegetarians and vegans, didn't buy the lie at some point in their lives? We learned. The truth got through to us. Tear down Fortress Happy Meat and the truth will reach others. It won't necessarily end what Ozersky calls "carnism," but it will demolish an illusion based on lies, deceit and denial.

Are the Do-Gooders Really Doing Much Good?

Last night, I watched a show called Beef Inc., a Canadian documentary made about 10 years ago. It was one of those lefty documentaries that excoriates big corporations. The bad guy, in this case, was Cargill, a gargantuan agribusiness and the largest private corporation in the United States. Cargill is about twice the size of the Empire in Star Wars and owns damn near half the planet. Not only did the film attack Cargill, it was also a celebration of the independent, small cattle farmers.

Like I said, the movie is a little more than a decade old, so it's sort of a forerunner of the contemporary "Happy Meat"/"Conscientious Carnivore" movements. The film's message was clear: Giant, impersonal corporations = Bad Guys. Small farmers who allow their animals to enjoy nature = Good Guys. All of the commentators on the show, who were mostly academics, reinforced this decidedly populist point of view.

On the surface, it's a sensible position. In Canada and the United States, small farmers are almost regarded as sacrosanct in the popular imagination (indeed, Thomas Jefferson called them "God's chosen people"). And who wouldn't support the underdog - the small farmer - over huge and powerful agribusinesses that have been gobbling up land and resources and making gargantuan profits for decades?

Interestingly, at the end of the documentary, the interviewer - perhaps hoping to end on a note of levity - asked the pundits on the show how they like their steaks prepared. Most of them laughingly answered "medium rare." Only one said, "I prefer my steak inside the cow, and I like the cow to be playing happily in the field."

Right on!

I must admit, I was taken aback when I watched the film that these liberal anti-corporate types - preaching the virtues of the small farmer over the big corporation - had NO ability to relate to the animals that were being slaughtered. Before I came around to veganism, I probably would've sounded a lot like one of these people if asked about the deleterious effects of gigantic agribusinesses. I most likely would've attacked the big guys and stood up for the small farmers.

Thanks to the efforts of brave souls like Gary Francione, more and more people are starting to see right through the phoniness of the "Happy Meat" and "Conscientious Carnivore" movements. True, the animals in these free range settings are better off than those held captive in the factory farm system while they are actually alive. But make no mistake about it: These animals are still enslaved and exploited, slaughtered for their meat to feed human beings who do not actually need that meat to survive. To quote Francione:

The “happy meat” movement is intended to make the public feel more comfortable about animal exploitation and to ensure that social discussion about animal ethics remains focused away from the relevant question—why are we eating animals in the first place given that it is not necessary for human health, is an ecological disaster, and, most importantly, results in our imposing suffering and death on sentient nonhumans? The “happy meat” movement is achieving these goals, and that does not represent any sort of progress. Quite the contrary. The “happy meat” movement represents a significant step backwards.

As I watched Beef Inc., I thought: What a sad thing that most of these anti-corporate commentators cannot recognize that the very same impersonal forces that drive corporations to exploit people, deplete communities, maximize profits, quash small competitors and sacrifice their own (through downsizing and relocating overseas) - that these very same institutions also stun billions of animals, hold them upside down by metal clamps, slash their throats and drain them of all of their precious lifeblood.

It is far easier to relate to small farmers who have a human face than to gigantic corporations. We can understand their challenges and dilemmas, their vulnerability and courage in the face of adversity. It is possible to be sympathetic to these farmers and their plight, yet also see right through the delusion of "humane slaughtering." I have no problem with peacefully coexisting with meat eaters. As I've said before, I ate meat most of my life, and I wouldn't have wanted some over-zealous vegan to pass judgment on me.

But I do wish the "progressive" do-gooders would abandon all this B.S. about Conscientious Carnivorism. The "free range" cow whose artery is slit open feels the agony of death every bit as much as the cow who was confined to a coffin-like space in a factory farm, yet the people who insist on devouring "happy meat" are in a complete state of denial about this fact. "What is a Conscientious Carnivore to do?" asked the Website Eco Child's Play. "The answer is three-fold: Buy small, buy local, buy grass-fed."

At least the Sarah Palins of this world don't fool themselves into believing there's a nice way to slaughter animals. When she proclaimed in her memoir Going Rogue her love for hamburgers, pork chops and the "seared fatty edges of a medium-well-done steak" and said "there's plenty of room for all Alaska's animals - right next to the mashed potatoes," at least she didn't try to place a lot of politically correct widow dressing around her decisions. You could almost envision Palin wearing a bib, tearing into the T-bone, and letting the juices run down her chin.

There's far more honesty in that sort of Red State gusto than in all of this mealy-mouthed talk of Conscientious Carnivorism.