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.

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.

New ACT regulations on battery hens are trivial

Those of us concerned about the treatment of caged hens have always argued against the appalling battery cages on the basis that they prevent the hens from expressing the vast majority of their natural, instinctive behaviours. They cannot spread, let alone flap, their wings; they cannot dust-bathe; there is no nest, no roosting and no perch. As they cannot exercise, their bones are weakened and break easily. They cannot even preen themselves.

Absolutely nothing in the ACT Government's new regulations ("Improving the welfare of caged hens”, 23 Feb 2010, http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/media.php?v=9255&m=51) will alleviate a single one of those restrictions.

And for the Chief Minister to brag about the extra space for ACT hens is nauseating. The only reason that the Parkwood hens have a little more space (a scant finger width in all directions) than most caged hens in Australia is that Pace Farm chose not to replace their obsolete, filthy bloody cages when regulations changed two years ago. Instead, they simply restocked with one less bird per cage.

And despite Stanhope's ridiculous claim, it is just not possible to "improve the welfare" of hens while keeping them in battery cages.

The ACT must truly take the lead and ban the cages.

Animal Liberation and the RSPCA

The President of Animal Liberation ACT (AL ACT), Mary Hayes, and I were invited to this morning’s Parliament House breakfast launch of Choose Wisely – the new RSPCA initiative designed to reduce the number of cage eggs consumed in Australia. I got a guernsey due to my previous involvement with AL ACT and its Free Range Canberra (FRC) campaign.

The morning started badly – no soy milk for this vegan’s coffee (“we do have skim milk, Sir”). Then it got worse; in announcing the launch of Choose Wisely, RSPCA ACT CEO, Michael Linke, acknowledged the past work of others in seeking to have cages banned in the ACT including the Greens MLA Dr Deb Foskey but, sadly, neglected to acknowledge the ongoing work of AL ACT. He made no mention of AL ACT’s role in the 1997 attempt to legislate against the cages and its more recent “Free Range Canberra” campaign which led to the introduction of last year’s revised Bill by the Greens. Ah well.

“Choose Wisely” is a term that has been used for some time by the RSPCA but now has a new logo and its own website http://www.choosewisely.org.au/. It is intended to persuade organisations to move toward the use of cage-free eggs. Those that do will earn the right to display Gold, Silver or Bronze logos depending on their degree of progress in eliminating cage eggs from their businesses. InterContinental Hotels Group (IHG) was announced as the first ACT business to commit to the move toward cage-free eggs as part of the RSPCA campaign.

The campaign will also encourage consumers to support such businesses and to use RSPCA supplied calling cards at other eateries – leaving them on the table to encourage the café to change its buying habits.

The IHG move will mean some 200,000 eggs per year in the ACT will be RSPCA–accredited cage-free eggs instead of sourced from caged birds. But will that make a difference? The Pace Farm facility in the ACT produces some 60 million eggs per year so even if IHG have been using all ACT eggs up til now the change will only affect about 0.33% of the ACT facility’s output.

This move is more symbolic than practical so it will really only make a difference if it leads other businesses and individuals to change their buying habits. Let’s hope that RSPCA and IHG can get some media coverage.

The Animal Liberation movement and the RSPCA have had their differences – and they continue to do so. According to http://www.rspcawatchdog.org/ (the Animal Lib point of view), “Despite the hard work of volunteers, RSPCA management consistently fails animals.” The RSPCA South Australia site (http://blog1.rspcasa.asn.au/2007/01/12/animal-liberation-front/) gives the other perspective. It says “we fundamentally differ from the animal liberation movement in the methods we use”.

But the differences are not restricted to methodology – the RSPCA also differs from the AL movement in what it regards as cruel. At breakfast this morning after seeing a DVD showing the horrors of battery cages we were invited to enjoy our hot breakfast which included cage-free eggs, bacon and chicken sausages – proclaimed joyously as all ‘cruelty-free’. This is where we differ. The RSPCA believes that it’s ok for humans to use animals – to breed them, incarcerate them, separate mothers from their babies, perform surgical procedures on them, transport them and, of course, slaughter them – as long as it’s all done ‘humanely’.

Does this mean that Animal Liberation and the RSPCA can’t work together? I don’t think so. As an Animal Liberationist I see the RSPCA as on the right track – but just a bit further back. Still, by being more conservative than Liberationists they are more likely to gain support from the general public as well as from politicians and businesses.

The local RSPCA ACT folk have been supportive on the battery cage issue – even if a little ignorant of AL ACT’s efforts and achievements – and I think this initiative deserves AL’s support. They are a far bigger organisation with a lot more money to spend than most Australian AL groups. Besides, once they achieve this goal of finishing off battery cages they will most likely have come to see the cruelty inherent in the barn system and refocus on it.

By the way, had the RSPCA been more aware of AL’s Free Range Canberra campaign they’d have seen that FRC recruited businesses long ago to commit to free range eggs (http://www.freerangecanberra.org/restcafe.htm).

They would also have been familiar with this calling card.

On a final note, after breakfast we were treated to a speech supporting the new campaign by Senator Gary Humphries who has apparently changed his spots somewhat since his days in the ACT Legislative Assembly where in 1997 he opposed the Greens’ Bill to ban battery cages on the basis of the possible loss of the Parkwood facility and its jobs from the ACT as well as “the weaknesses that the alternative schemes of egg production being suggested by the Greens might have in terms of animal welfare”. Good to see you catching up, Senator.

What if dogs laid eggs?

I wonder what would happen if dogs laid eggs? You know – the sort of eggs that humans have somehow come to believe they need to eat for good health.

Would we tolerate them being kept by the thousands, 2 or 3 per cage in stinking, filthy, vermin infested sheds like those in West Belconnen?

Would we be content with these dogs standing on wire mesh for their entire, egg-laying lives (say 12 -15 months), forced to push their heads through the wire to eat and drink?

Would we ignore the fact that the dogs weren’t fed for the last few days of their lives in order to save costs?

Would we turn a blind eye to the thousands who have their legs broken when they are hauled out of the cages to be crammed into crates then driven in an open truck to an abattoir somewhere near Geelong – over eight hours away?

Would we be happy that hundreds of ‘spent’ dogs that escape or are dropped during this ‘depopulation’ fall into the huge pile of their own waste to drown or to be trapped unable to move and left to die?

Would the ACT Government defend such a factory as the “single-largest contributor to Canberra’s primary production sector” – despite it paying less that $10 per week for the land?

Would the RSPCA and police be more prepared to act on such blatant cruelty if the victims were dogs – rather than chooks?

Filthy Battery Cages in the A.C.T.

You may have seen Jamie Oliver’s recent TV show on eggs and chicken meat. If so, you’d have seen him stroll through a huge, modern looking battery egg production shed. We saw the shiny, clean metal of the cages and heard him say that there was no strong smell. As bad as these shiny cramped cages are for the hens, many older battery cage facilities, including the Pace Farm Canberra sheds at Parkwood (Macgregor West) are far worse.

They are filthy, stinking hell-holes full of manure, cobwebs, mice and rats and have a stench of ammonia and manure that can knock you over.

I’ve been to the Parkwood sheds twice.

Each visit coincided with Pace Farm de-populating (emptying) one or two of their sheds. They do this after about 12 to 15 months when it is determined that the hens have passed their peak production.

It’s not a matter of monitoring each hen and retiring her when she's past her prime, they pull all 20,000 to 30,000 hens out of the shed on the designated date.

These so-called ‘spent hens’ are yanked out of the cages which they have shared with one or two others for over a year and passed by their legs down a bucket-line of casual workers then crammed into crates to be taken by truck to be slaughtered for second quality meat products including pet food and stock feed (for example, see http://www.greatplainsprotein.com/)

In the process, some hens are dropped or escape from their cages. Many of these end up in the manure piled up on the ground level of the sheds below the cages – the accumulated droppings of the thousands of hens over the previous year.

These hens are supposed to be retrieved. The ACT Domestic Poultry Code of Practice section 12.7 states, “Where birds are found to have escaped into the manure area under cages they must be captured as soon as practicable on the day of observation and returned to cages or destroyed humanely”.

But they are not worth a lot to Pace so are left to fend for themselves.

On my first visit, there were many birds in the manure who had obviously been there for some time as they had hard balls of manure built up around their legs making it difficult for them to walk. On the second visit, the manure was wetter and many birds were stuck fast – some drowned or drowning in the more liquid sections of the manure.

The fermenting, stinking manure will be scooped out by a front-end loader in the following days before a fresh load of young hens are crammed into their homes for the next year or so.

The cages shown in Jamie Oliver’s show were bad enough, denying the hens the opportunity to be hens, to spread their wings, dust bathe, nest etc. But the Pace cages in Canberra are even worse.

If you still eat eggs – please make sure you buy free range eggs, preferably from a certified organic supplier.

Better still – give them up. They are not necessary.