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.

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.

An open letter to RSPCA ACT CEO, Michael Linke

Michael, I have seen your recent messages to one of the Animal Liberation ACT members following some posts (since deleted) on the RSPCA ACT Facebook page. I am not writing on behalf of AL-ACT as I am not an office bearer – just an ordinary member. But as such I took offence at your words and wanted to pass on my thoughts to you – and your members.

The origin of the discussion was an announcement by RSPCA of upcoming events. This brought about a number of posts suggesting that the RSPCA should serve only vegan food at such events as the production of unnecessary animal based foods causes massive suffering and the deaths of millions of farmed animals. It was put that by so doing, the RSPCA would be taking a very clear stance against the treatment of farmed animals – removing some of the inconsistency in its current position.


In response, you stated that “we do not promote a vegetarian lifestyle”. We know that – but we fail to see why. Your UK RSPCA colleagues provide links to the Vegetarian Society, have recently encouraged people to “look out for a tasty vegetarian alternative, such as a nut roast” for Christmas dinner and have educational materials that encourage teachers and students to look at the issue.

The RSPCA ACT website does not even mention the word ‘vegetarian’ yet reducing the amount of animal products one consumes is the single most effective way to reduce animal suffering.

You also labelled us ‘extremists’ and accused us of “bemoaning” and criticising rather than taking real action. I find that extremely offensive and arrogant given that you are a paid, full-time CEO of a multi-million dollar organisation. To criticise the amount of work done by volunteers in a small community group is a bit rich – and is also completely unjustified. AL-ACT is extremely active and has achieved much on a very limited budget. They have been instrumental in having animal circuses and rodeos banned and despite your apparent attempt to claim personal credit for the ban on fireworks and the new egg-labelling laws, AL-ACT has been extremely active and effective in both those campaigns for years.

Further to the battery caged eggs issue, I attended your launch of the Choose Wisely campaign at the parliament house breakfast and, as I said to you afterwards, I was very disappointed that you could not even mention the work done by Animal Liberation in the speeches and video presentation purporting to portray the history of the anti-cage campaigns in the ACT. You made no mention at all of the work done over the last 14 years by AL – including its work with the Greens on drafting Bills and the effective campaigning carried out by Free Range Canberra (an AL-ACT campaign).

The RSPCA often demonstrates a blind spot for farmed animals continuing with a recent item in the Canberra Times regarding the hot weather where you appealed for people to take care of domestic animals and expressed concern for wildlife yet failed to mention the thousands of sheep and cattle often left in paddocks with no shade on the hottest of days. Nor did you mention your commercial partners, Pace Farm and how the hens in their stinking hot sheds at Parkwood would have suffered over these hot periods.

We know you are not an animal rights group but you don’t need to be to mention on your site and in your literature that no modern animal ‘farming’ is humane.

I understand the difference between animal rights and animal welfare. I can see that taking a position (veganism/animal rights) at the end of the spectrum causes difficulties in pulling the average Aussie that long distance from his current meat-eating way of life. I can also see your point in aiming for prodding Mr Average via small steps and staying “in the tent” – but while you are there you need to start acknowledging that there is a lot of space and a growing crowd outside it.

RSPCA is far too inclined to stay in its comfort zone. It’s time you all got a bit bolder and acknowledged veganism as the most effective way for individuals to reduce animal suffering. And refusing to serve dead animals at your functions should be your first step.

Mike O'Shaughnessy

Jack Waterford - Human Supremacist (and proud of it)

The Canberra Times Editor-at-Large, Jack Waterford, is a human supremacist of the first order.

He’s one of those human supremacists who will sneer at the very possibility that the term even exists.

He’s not the only one by any means – nor, I suspect, is he the worst example. But unfortunately, he is in a position to promulgate his speciesist beliefs through Canberra’s only daily newspaper – and he does so often.

On several occasions over the last few years Jack has devoted his various opinion pieces to belittling vegetarians and animal liberationists. (Some of those opinion pieces are still available on the Canberra Times site and on his blog - www.canberratimes.com.au/blogs/jack-waterford). He also often acts as Letters Editor for the paper so is in a position to suppress or edit pro-animal views – though I must admit that my letters get a reasonable success rate, even when I am criticising his writings.

In Waterford’s case, his attitude of human supremacy seems to stem from his childhood on a rural property where nonhuman animals were either;

1. ‘stock’ – cattle or sheep to be grown, used and killed as required,
2. more-or-less domesticated dogs and moggies – useful around the farm but, kids, don’t get too attached to them,
3. pests – any other nonhuman animals that such people believe interfere in their right to make a living off the land and their introduced ‘stock’, or
4. others – I gather a very small group of native animals who were paid the respect of being ignored.
   

You can take the boy out of the country but…

Waterford has a thing about vegetarians and regards us with mystified disdain if not real hatred. (“I learned early that vegetarianism is a fairly nutty, though harmless idea, perfectly tolerable so long as the proponent did not frighten the horses”).

Strangely, he believes that vegetarianism adopted as a ‘food fad’ can lead to veganism which can lead to support for animal rights. It is, of course, the opposite of what generally happens; learning of the cruelty inherent in producing unnecessary food and fibre from our fellow animals leads compassionate people to stop consuming meat and other animal products. It’s the concern for animals that leads to vegetarianism.

He is often very condescending toward us animal activists – apparently believing that we only ever campaign for animals that are “thought to be especially warm, cuddly or symbolic” – leaving cane toads and other less furry critters to fend for themselves. He also seems to believe that animal activists (including myself) are being ‘misinformed’ by ‘someone’. He apparently refuses to consider the possibility that we are able to seek out information and reach conclusions on our own.

His common themes also include the accusation that groups such as PETA (http://www.peta.org/) who argue for better treatment of animals are secretly aiming to make the whole world vegan. There is no secret, Jack. That’s exactly what we want (amongst other reforms). This is from PETA’s FAQ page;

“People who support animal rights believe that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose and that animals deserve consideration of their best interests regardless of whether they are cute, useful to humans, or endangered and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all (just as a mentally challenged human has rights even if he or she is not cute or useful and even if everyone dislikes him or her)”.

Jack’s most recent rant was on November 6 (I’m sure the Canberra Times will include it on his blog site when they get around to it. They seem to be a bit behind – at least on the Opinion pages – at the moment).

On that occasion he got a bit personal, describing me as “the hapless self-appointed publicist for a vegetarian movement which would, in the natural course of things, attract little publicity or support”. Before stepping down earlier this year, I was for a number of years the duly elected President of the ACT Vegetarian Society (http://www.vegetariansociety.org.au/). I often wrote on behalf of the Society but at other times, and since stepping down, write to express a personal opinion – backed by facts where applicable. By no means a "self-appointed publicist".

As for "hapless", it’s a bit tricky to jump up and down and yell “I am not hapless” without appearing - well, bloody hapless. So I’ll just have to let people decide on that point for themselves.

He also accused me of describing him, his history and ideas as "disgusting". I have never called him names as far as I can remember (at least until now) and it would be a foolish thing to do. Many of us, myself included, shared Jack’s prejudices until we began our journey of understanding and compassion toward nonhumans. I recall, many years prior to my own vegetarianism, meeting up with a cousin who I hadn’t seen since he was a small kid only to hear he was ‘a vegetarian’. I silently scoffed – thinking that the poor bloke must be a bit soft. Sadly, he was killed in a motor accident nearly 20 years ago and I regret not being able to chat to him now and compare notes.

Jack Waterford is not just wrong in his attitude to nonhumans and those who speak up for them but seems to delight in displaying that wrongness. He also comes across as a condescending bully – in one infamous article implying that he had the urge to smash us over the head with a 12” bolt.

It’s a shame he uses his position of influence to vilify animal libbers and vegetarians - particularly at a time when moving away from a diet based on animal products would benefit us, and nonhumans, in so many ways.