Time for our animal protection organisations to promote veganism

So disappointed by our three most prominent animal organisations - Voiceless, Animals Australia and, worst of all, the RSPCA . In fact, let's say I'm completely bloody disillusioned with the RSPCA.

If you are an individual who believes that nonhuman animals deserve our respect and protection the first thing you do is stop eating or wearing them - i.e. you become vegan.

If you are an organisation dedicated to caring for, protecting and engendering respect for nonhuman animals, your prime message to your followers must be to go vegan.

None of these organisations does that. The RSPCA even promotes and sells its own approved meat and eggs.

Voiceless co-founders Brian and Ondine Sherman had an opinion piece published in the Australian of Dec 23 which listed the ways in which we cause misery to our fellow animals for unnecessary food - especially at Christmas - but finished with, "If you must have meat, consider buying only freerange. It may even be time to explore meat-free alternatives to traditional festive fare.."

Animals Australia at least tries to nudge people toward the vegetarian section of the supermarket and suggests alternatives to eggs and dairy.

I can only hope that 2012 will see some sort of strengthening within these three organisations. Voiceless and Animals Australia must begin to unequivocally promote veganism.

RSPCA is coming from such a low base that their aim might be to stop promoting their approved meat and eggs. Their vegan days are a way off yet , I'm afraid.

Why is RSPCA Australia not a vegan organisation?

The Australian RSPCA puts its name and logo on eggs and some meats encouraging the public to buy them because the animals used or killed to produce the foods were raised to minimal standards of animal welfare.

When questioned as to why a society which claims to try to prevent cruelty to animals profits from their exploitation and slaughter and does not encourage people to give up meat and other animal foods they refer to this Knowledgebase entry:

“Why is the RSPCA not a vegetarian organisation?”

Just as the RSPCA respects the choices of people who don’t consume meat or other animal products, we also respect those individuals who do choose to do so. The RSPCA is not a vegetarian or vegan organisation. We acknowledge that one way of reducing the suffering of animals in livestock production systems is by not purchasing products that are sourced from farm animals. Indeed, when some people become aware of the realities of large-scale animal farming, they choose to become vegetarian or vegan. We respect this choice. However, in the mean time, there are many more people who choose to ignore the suffering of farm animals or who choose to source products from animals farmed in a more humane manner. So, while ever the farming of animals for food and fibre continues, the RSPCA seeks to ensure that the conditions under which those animals live meet their physical and behavioural needs. The RSPCA believes we can help improve how farm animals are treated by getting involved in the process and constantly pushing for higher production standards along the supply chain. We do this at government, industry and producer level.

The RSPCA encourages people who do consume meat, eggs, milk and other animal products to make a higher welfare choice, and to help them do this the RSPCA aims to ensure that higher welfare alternatives are readily available on the supermarket shelf. (http://kb.rspca.org.au/Why-is-the-RSPCA-not-a-vegetarian-organisation_435.html)

Another item in their knowledgebase addressing jumps racing – “What is the RSPCA position on horse jumping races?” (http://kb.rspca.org.au/What-is-the-RSPCA-position-on-horse-jumping-races_234.html) quite clearly and unequivocally states that RSPCA Australia is opposed to jumps races.

But what happens if we re-write their stance on jumps racing using precisely the same logic, arguments and words they put forward in their explanation of why they are not a vegetarian organisation?

It comes out like this:

 

Why is the RSPCA not opposed to jumps racing?

Just as the RSPCA respects the choices of people who don’t support jumps races or other animal contests, we also respect those individuals who do choose to do so. The RSPCA is not opposed to jumps racing. We acknowledge that one way of reducing the suffering of animals in the racing industry is by not supporting jumps races. Indeed, when some people become aware of the realities of jumps racing, they choose to reject it. We respect this choice. However, in the mean time, there are many more people who choose to ignore the suffering of horses or who choose to support horses raced in a more humane manner. So, while ever the racing of horses over jumps continues, the RSPCA seeks to ensure that the conditions under which those animals live meet their physical and behavioural needs. The RSPCA believes we can help improve how horses are treated by getting involved in the process and constantly pushing for higher racing standards. We do this at government, industry and trainer level.

 

The RSPCA encourages people who do support jumps racing to make a higher welfare choice, and to help them do this the RSPCA aims to ensure that higher welfare alternatives are readily available at all RSPCA Race Courses.

 

I think that shows the weakness and inconsistency of their arguments on vegetarianism. They simply choose to be firm on jumps races but weak on vegetarianism without any underlying, solid reasoning.

RSPCA Australia needs to be honest with the public and promote a strict vegetarian (vegan) diet as a start point for anyone who purports to be against animal cruelty.

Then, of course, they’d risk 90% of their members’ fees and donations and all the profits from their ‘happy eggs’ and ‘happy meat’.

I wonder if they’ll change.

Vegetarian and Vegan Society?

The ACT Vegetarian Society recently held a special meeting to vote on the proposition that they change their name to the 'Vegetarian & Vegan Society of the ACT Inc.'.

Sadly, the proposition was voted down.

The explanation that came out with the announcement of the decision made little sense. It claimed that extending the name to include ‘vegan’ would risk watering down the inclusivity of the society as those following semi-vegetarian diets like ‘pescatarian’ (a sort of vegetarian – still eating fishes) might then feel excluded as they were not named specifically.

Rubbish! The term ‘vegan’ in the Society’s name would have increased the inclusivity of the group – not diminished it.

The Vegetarian Society includes those who are vegetarian and those aspiring to be vegetarian (those who are partly there and those considering the move). Vegans do not aspire to be vegetarian – many have ‘been there, done that’. They are now vegan because they understand that a vegetarian diet (which permits the consumption of dairy and or eggs) still causes massive suffering and death to sentient animals.

Veganism is beyond vegetarianism. Adding the word to the Society’s name would have widened its scope – made it appear more inclusive and more welcoming of vegans.

There appears to be a conservative core of old-style vegetarians in the group who feel threatened by veganism and see it as extreme. Some members have said they could not be a member of a ‘Vegan Society’ even though it’s reasonable to expect that a vegan group would welcome people who are not fully vegan in the same way as the vegetarian society welcomes those not fully vegetarian. I guess they don’t want to become ‘not quite qualified’ members of a Vegan group, preferring to stay, instead, ‘fully qualified’ members of the Vegetarian Society.

Come on, vegetarians. It’s time to rethink. The dairy and egg industries are every bit as cruel to animals as the meat industry. Veganism is not extreme, is very easy and is the morally consistent approach to deciding what you eat.

By the way, anyone in Canberra looking for a vegan group should try Animal Liberation ACT whose objects include, “To promote and support veganism” and who have a stated commitment that they “will only knowingly use products, including food, of non-animal origin” at all functions, meetings etc. Members of Animal Liberation ACT recently handed out a thousand ‘Why Veg’ booklets (which promote veganism) at the RSPCA Million Paws Walk.

Mothers' Day

Are you giving your Mum a treat on Mothers’ Day? Breakfast in bed, scones with jam and cream, maybe a box of chocolates? Without thinking, you put milk on the cereal and in her breakfast tea and the chocolates you bought most likely contain it as well.

So spare a thought for the mothers from whom that milk was taken. They don’t get to be mothers other than for a few hours after their annual calf is born and before he or she is taken away forever – usually to slaughter – so that we can take the milk. This separation causes immense distress to both mother and baby.

After enduring this for seven years or so, cows are worn out and transported off to be made into hamburgers.

So give Mum her treats but out of respect to all mothers, use alternatives to dairy. Soy beans don’t suckle their young.

Happy Mothers' Day, Mums.

A Plea to Vegetarians

The vegetarian diet is one that excludes all animal flesh and the by-products of the slaughter of an animal (such as gelatine and rennet) but it may include eggs and/or dairy products. The full, correct term for this diet is ‘lacto-ovo-vegetarian’ (or ‘ovo- lacto-vegetarian’) but the shorter term, ‘vegetarian’ has come to mean the same thing.

That’s pretty much the definition accepted by vegetarian societies world-wide and it is what is usually understood when one sees a ‘vegetarian’ section on a restaurant menu or a ‘vegetarian’ cookbook or recipe.

Most vegetarians choose their diet out of concern for the animals being killed for their flesh. So did those who set up Australia’s first vegetarian society in 1886 who felt that dairy and eggs caused little harm to the animals and included in their constitution and manifesto, “the great majority of so-called Vegetarians indulge in the use of eggs, milk, butter and cheese. It is not necessary to deprive animals of their lives in order to obtain these articles of food. On the contrary, many animals are, in consequence of the use of these substances, called into existence, and live happy lives in the society of mankind”.

While the early vegetarians felt dairy products and eggs were acceptable, if the same people were starting a vegetarian society today I believe there would be no quibbling: dairy and eggs would be off the menu! Why? Because the world has changed. Back then there were no intensive factory farms, no battery cages and no mass killing of the male chicks (people generally ate the excess roosters and gathered the eggs from the hens).

Now both the egg and dairy industries slaughter the animals they exploit well before they would have died naturally. If we believe it to be wrong to kill animals in order to produce unnecessary food, does it make any real difference whether they are killed before or after being used?

All male chicks bred by the egg industry are slaughtered on the first day of their life because males are of no value to the industry. Male and female breeder chickens (the parents of the layer hens) are slaughtered when they have outlived their usefulness and over 700,000 "bobby" calves are slaughtered each year in Australia in their first week of life simply so their mothers’ milk can be stolen for humans.

There is also widespread suffering for the animals used by these industries prior to their death. Dairy cows suffer dehorning, tail-docking and the distress of having their babies taken from them every twelve months. Layer hens are de-beaked whether destined for battery cages, barns or free-range.

In fact it can be argued that the dairy and egg industries are crueller than the meat industry in that the animals live a little longer and therefore suffer more. And to repeat, all ‘food’ animals end up at the same slaughterhouses.

For this reason, I believe that it is inconsistent with the ethical and philosophical aims of vegetarian societies to promote a diet that contains any animal products. The promotion of (lacto ovo )vegetarianism is, in effect, telling the world that it is wrong to kill nonhuman animals for their flesh yet it is okay to breed, imprison and mutilate them for milk or eggs – and then kill them.

People become vegetarian for all the best reasons but vegetarians need to consider that whatever reasons led them to be vegetarian should now also lead them to reject eggs and dairy products if they have not already done so.

Their vegetarian society tells them that they have reached an endpoint – that they are ‘vegetarian’. And society in general reinforces this acceptance of vegetarianism as a final state with a special section on the menu at many restaurants and processed food labelled, ‘suitable for vegetarians’ – each of which often means ‘contains dairy and or egg products’.

But given the changes in animal agriculture, lacto-ovo-vegetarianism is now not an endpoint – it is simply a place along the road to complete vegetarianism and should have no more recognition than that place where we first give up red meat or the one where we ‘still eat a little fish’.

Everyone on the ‘vegetarian road’ is to be congratulated on what they’ve done so far but also encouraged to keep going to the end. The current concept of ‘vegetarianism’ serves to stop people prematurely on that road – it gives them a comfortable but artificial niche.

Vegetarians are practising a far more caring and environmentally friendly diet than the average meat-eater but to be consistent, should now take the final, logical step of removing all products derived from the exploitation of animals from their diet.

On a practical level, soy milk or oat or rice milks provide a perfect alternative to cow’s milk. Soy yoghurt and ice cream are also delicious and nutritious. There are many alternatives to eggs in baking and scrambled tofu makes a great breakfast dish. If you consume processed foods, it may mean a little more reading of labels while you determine which products are animal-free. As strange as it may sound, milk solids appear in all sorts of weird places such as one brand of tomato paste.

So – I urge you to remove that qualification (‘lacto-ovo-’) from the description of your diet and become fully and unambiguously vegetarian by following a diet that contains no animal products – a diet that, as far as is practicable, does not support the exploitation of nonhuman animals.

Finally, if you are a member of a Vegetarian Society I encourage you check the rules of your Society to see that they do not promote a diet that ‘may contain eggs and dairy products’. If they do, please work toward changing them so that your Vegetarian Society is no longer ambiguous on the mistreatment and killing of nonhuman animals.