1, articles from EAA - pg 226-232, 477- 479 answer Q. 1 and 3
2, Read NY Times article below and write a commentary on this blog or bring to class. Commentary should include author's claim and if the argument (state the argument) works for you and why? Be ready to talk about it in class
April 1, 2007
Ideas & Trends
Being Nice to the Bacon, Before You Bring It Home
By PAUL VITELLO
SOME of my relatives in Sicily are farmers; and the first time I visited them, at 19, I made a habit each morning of visiting the rabbits they kept in a pen near the house. There were a few dozen. They were cute.
One morning, my uncle Paolo, a large and kindly man, came in to tend to business, righting an overturned bucket here, straightening a crate there and deftly scooping up a rabbit with one hand, wedging it under his arm and twisting its neck until dead. It took about five seconds.
Thus was one meat consumer introduced to the culture of meat producers.
When Burger King announced last week that it would favor producers who treated their animals more humanely it was welcome news to animal welfare advocates. But it also served to remind the rest of us that if we are meat eaters, we are slaughterers, too. At least by proxy.
To farmers and ranchers who raise animals for food, the feeding, housing and killing of livestock is an unbroken continuum that delivers a product to people far removed from its production — city folk who work in advertising, or whatever it is that city people do.
Animals are for petting, not killing. Meat, unrelated, is for eating. And never the twain shall meet.
But over the last decade, a slow but steady convergence of these two world views has begun to change the way consumers view their meat, and some producers view their animals.
Temple Grandin, an animal science professor at Colorado State University who is a pioneer in the field of humane cattle handling, said public pressure on meat producers in the last few years has been “building and building to where I feel we’re at a tipping point now.”
When she spoke at last week’s conference on animal care and handling at the annual American Meat Institute meeting in Kansas City, Mo., she said, there were more than 300 people in attendance. “That’s more than we ever had before, and I think it’s a wonderful sign,” she said.
Beginning in the 1990s, animal welfare advocates like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals began virtually force-feeding the consuming public on certain realities of so-called factory farming.
For the sake of production efficiencies and a low-cost food supply, they explained, cows, pigs and poultry are often condemned to sunless, sometimes squalid lives, only to die with needless cruelty. These advocates led protests against the largest hamburger chains, beneficiaries of the factory system.
After initial resistance, in 2001 the chains agreed to some improvements. McDonald’s and Burger King imposed some guidelines for their meat and egg suppliers: extra water, wing-room and fresh air for egg-laying hens; mandatory electric-shock stunning of pigs and cattle before slaughter.
Last week, Burger King went further. In an agreement that PETA and other advocates called “a historic advance,” it said it would favor suppliers who did not confine their chickens and pigs in cages and crates, and who used gas rather than electric shock to knock out chickens before slaughter.
Perhaps this is more than you want to know about the life and death of the creatures who made that ham and eggs on your plate possible. But by most indicators, many Americans are increasingly interested in asking. From niche-market beginnings, “free-range” and other humanely raised animal products have been embraced by many major grocery retailers, including Wal-Mart.
Retailers clearly see advantages in appealing to the demographic of kinder and gentler meat-eaters, according to Ron Paul, president of Technomic, a Chicago-based research and consulting firm for food suppliers. “There is a growing realization that the humane movement is a long-term movement,” he said. “It’s not going to go away.”
Among meat producers, the new ethos seems partly understandable and partly not. “There is obviously a great deal of emotion and publicity surrounding the issue right now,” said Janet M. Riley, spokeswoman for the American Meat Institute. “From our perspective, handling animals humanely gives you a better quality product.”
More than 80 law schools now offer an “animal law” course that deals in some way with the question of humane treatment and slaughter of livestock, said Paul Waldau, director of the Center for Animals and Public Policy at Tufts University’s Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine. He teaches such a course every other year at Harvard Law School.
It might seem hypocritical to address the quality of life of a creature being raised exclusively to be killed for food. Mr. Waldau, who has degrees in law, religion and philosophy, said that the issue was not meat eating per se, but one’s responsibility for one’s choices as a consumer. Whether to eat the meat of animals treated abysmally during their lifetimes or to buy so-called blood diamonds or clothing made in sweatshops, become parallel questions, he said.
Both Mr. Waldau and Ms. Grandin see the animal welfare movement in the context of 50 years of American political evolution, and the profound shift of attitudes that accompanied the civil rights and women’s movements.
Tell that to my friend, the rabbit. In Sicily, the episode of many years ago ended with me in what might be called the gray zone of slaughter: I held the hind legs of the little rabbit while my uncle slipped its skin off in virtually one piece, like a pair of Dr. Dentons.
As I remember, it was cooked in a stew. We ate it with crusty bread that night. It tasted like chicken. And it was very good.
9 comments:
(sorry, the few typos i saw while re-reading my published comment was killing me)
At first I thought this article was going to be about the eating of rabbits. If I hadn't 'forced' myself to read further, I probably would have stopped at the part where the author mentioned his uncle killing the rabbit. But to get to the point of the article, I am glad that food distributors like McDonald's and Burger King laid out guidelines to what treatments can be used for the future meat products they will be selling. On reading that treating the animals humanely will give us better quality products reminded me of those California Cows commercials. The commericals all mention something like "Great dairy come from happy cows. Happy cows come from California." You also always see the cows 'living it up' and 'having fun' in a wide, open pasture with no barns and little to no fencing in sight. These commercials are examples of how this article may be telling us that we really do get better products from better-treated animals.
That was a very well written article. I enjoyed how Mr. Vitello used his personal experience to set up the story. Also, like most city folks, he brought to my attention that I separate animal from meat and that I never really thought about how the meat got to my plate. I now know I must think about where the meat comes from and the living conditions the animals were in. His article really made me think of what is important in my life. I am willing to spend a little more money for a nice filet that comes from a humane cattle farm.
I learned alot from this article. Before I read Vitello's article I knew nothing about this situation. Personal experiences help a reader to see why exactly the author of an article chose to write about such a topic. I really like the way Vitello does just that. I agree that animals should have certain rights even if they are destined to be eaten. I'm surprised that Burger king was the first to take a major step in enforcing animal rights. Overall, the article was very informational and may help to persuade other companies to make some of the same actions.
First and foremost i strongly dislike reading about the death of animals that I eat on an almost everyday basis. The author's claim seemed somewhat hard to understand. What I got out of it as the claim is the procedure of torture or death prior to the animal's death, and how how the different kinds of procedures can be a request to consumers like Burger King and McDonalds. I think that if fast food restaurants find it important for thier product to go through a certain procedure to better their product, then thats great, but personally I hate fast food and try not to eat anything like McDonald's because of how unhealthy, no matter what kind of death it went through to better the taste.
I get the authors point about how major food chains are heading in the way of humane killing of the animals they use for food, but as a consumer I think people are jumping on the band wagon because they do not understand what it is like for the person doing the killing. If they are using it as a way to support their family and are barely getting by with what they are doing then this is going to put them out of business and leave their family hungry (poor choice of words). To me it seems like people who have no idea about the food production business just got a graphic idea about what goes on and they are thinking about their new puppy and thinking about how inhumane it is. I bet the way the animals are being killed now is much better than the way they were killed long ago in the beginning of this country when they were killed with bow and arrow.
I believe that Vitello's argument was not necessarily that animal's should be treated more humanely before slaughtering, but that consumers should educate themselves on the topic rather than simply "digging in" to their juicy burgers. He is extremely accurate in stating that most of society does not make the connection between their dinner and a once living, breathing animal. I don't think that is because society does not care, but because we know that we won't like what we discover. However, the more we are educated on the horrid conditions our "meals" are faced with prior to slaughter, the more we can advocate for changes. Extra water, more room, and the ability to run in the sunshine should indeed be granted to every animal, and I'm glad that more Americans are taking the time to stop and consider this subject. I believe Vitello's argument is very successful in making people aware that " if they are meat eaters, they are slaughters too."
This article did not affect how I feel about the slaughtering of animals whatsoever. When Mr. Vitello mentioned his uncle killing a rabbit right in front of him by breaking his neck, this did not affect me in the least bit. Although it might be a gruesome image for some people, it just doesnt affect the way i think about the killing of animals for food. Also, it's ridiculous that fast food resteraunts would favor meat producers who treat their animals more humanely. This would directly affect the consumer by raising food prices even more. I also think it is absurd to place guidlines making these animal farmers have "mandatory electric shock" before they slaughter the animals. The way i look at it is if the animals are about to be slaughtered anyway, why go through the extra hassle of shocking them before hand. This to me seems more cruel than just killing them. I do however agree that the animals should be given a little more room to roam around in and more water and food. I just dont completely agree that they should go through the extra steps of "shocking" them or "gassing" them before they are killed. That will just make the meat more expensive to buy off the shelves.
Vitello's article raised my awareness to the way farms animals are being treated and killed before being served to us in the restaurants or grocery stores. Even though the subject of the article was very clear I couldn't really understand what was his claim, since he didn't really express his own feeling about it, and in the end of the article you might understand that he actually don't care. Especially since he enjoyed his uncle rabbit so much after he saw him break his neck and strip the skin of the cute rabbit. I liked the way he covered the subject and the different sources he presented.
Post a Comment