"Restaurant: (Im)Possible" VegNews Article Now Online

Last month I wrote in this blog about my four-page article on how to open a vegan restaurant being in the latest issue of VegNews. Well, now that the magazine's November/December issue is out, I've posted the article as a .pdf on my Web site. If you never got around to reading "Restaurant: (Im)Possible" in print form, now's your chance to read it online.

So You Wanna Open a Vegan Restaurant?

Get an insiders’ view of the biz in my latest article for VegNews magazine!

Do you dream of opening a vegan restaurant? If so, then you’ll want to devour my delicious new four-page feature “Restaurant (Im)Possible” in the September/October 2011 issue of VegNews magazine—on newsstands now!

This article not only provides an overview of the essential steps on the road to restaurant success, but terrific tips & tricks of the trade served up by seasoned restaurateurs. From raising money and choosing a food concept to getting experience and knowing what to expect, you’ll get expert advice based on my interviews with some of the industry’s preeminent players, including:

- Greg Dollarhyde, CEO of Southern California vegan fast-casual chain Veggie Grill

- Amy McNutt, co-founder of the vegan Texas-based Spiral Diner & Bakery

- Eric Prescott, co-founding venture capitalist behind Boston’s Piece ‘O Pie gourmet vegan pizzeria

- Richard Landau, co-founder of upscale vegan eateries Horizons and Vedge in Philadelphia

Whether you’re an established entrepreneur on the prowl for new investment opportunities, a visionary neophyte with a hunger to found your own restaurant empire, or just someone looking for a tasty read, my new article will give you some yummy and nourishing food for thought. If you’re not yet a VegNews subscriber, get your copy now by ordering online or picking one up wherever fine vegan lifestyle publications are sold! 

Meat-Free Politicians

Vote Veg! That's the message of "Meat-Free Politicians," my new article which VegNews magazine published on their website today. The piece includes short profiles of five vegetarian leaders at the national, state and local levels:

- US Congressman Dennis Kucinich

- US Congresswoman Betty Sutton

- Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin

- California Assemblyman Jim Beall, Jr.
- San Francisco Supervisor Sophie Maxwell

 

My aim was to highlight the work that each of these elected officials has done to help move the veg cause forward.

 

READ THE ARTICLE

Muslim Veg Americans

Islam's animal rights ambassadors

In the stark shadow of 9/11, many otherwise patriotic Americans seem to have forgotten that the U.S. Constitution unequivocally guarantees our right and freedom to practice whatever religion we desire. From the high-profile protests against the “Ground Zero Mosque”* to the knifing of a Muslim cabbie in New York City and the Florida pastor who coordinated (and then cancelled) a Koran bonfire at his church, it's become all too painfully clear that America is afflicted with an advanced case of Islamophobia. Obviously, some of our fellow citizens are mistakenly equating the vast majority of peaceful mainstream Muslims with the comparatively small number of enraged jihadists who indiscriminately kill in Allah's name—turning all Muslims into potential targets of hate crime.

Islam and animal rights share at least one unfortunate commonality: the more extreme elements in both camps top the FBI's list of the most dangerous domestic terrorism threats facing our nation. Of course, the feds specifically bestow this dubious distinction on those who use violent and/or destructive means to achieve their ends, but in some people's minds, anyone who follows the philosophy of either Islam or animal rights is guilty by association of conspiring with the enemy—even if we would (literally) never hurt a fly. In that way, veg Muslims may be doubly suspect in a society that's still reeling from the traumatic impact of a shocking mass-murder nine years after the fact.

As an American and a human being, it sickens me to see anyone persecuted for their spiritual beliefs—as much as seeing animals tortured in factory farms and other industrialized death camps. I therefore feel compelled to stand up for peaceful Muslims, but as a secular agnostic, I would not presume to speak for them. It is in this spirit of solidarity that I present my exclusive interview with blogger, financial analyst and vegetarian American Muslim Fareeda Ahmed.

AR: Where are you from, and where did you grow up?

FA: I'm from New York. I was born in Manhattan and raised mostly in Westchester County, but I also lived in New York City for a number of years because I got my undergraduate degree at Columbia, and then worked at Morgan Stanley. My parents, on the other hand, were both born and raised in Pakistan, and came to the U.S. and got married after my father did his medical residency here. A lot of our family still lives in Pakistan, so I usually make a trip there every year. And I just moved to California last month to get my MBA at Stanford.

9/11 was obviously a pivotal point in American history and our relations with Muslims. Were you by any chance in New York City on September 11th, 2001?

No, at that time I was just 16—going on 17, as the song** goes—and a high school senior in Tarrytown, which is on the Hudson River about a half hour's train ride from the city. The entire school of about 400 students just so happened to be at an assembly that morning, and about 45 minutes into it, the headmaster interrupted to announce that two planes had been deliberately crashed into the Twin Towers. Our proximity to the World Trade Center meant that many of my classmates' parents and family members worked in or around there—my own cousin worked at the time for Morgan Stanley, sometimes in their WTC office—so the shock of that day was particularly personal for us.

How did you feel when you learned that the hijackers were Muslim?

I felt a strong dual connection to America and New York—my country and my home state. I was struck hard by the reality that they had both just been attacked so violently and viciously, while also realizing that this tragedy was going to dramatically change things for Muslims here in America and around the world. For me, and for many others I think, it marked the end of childhood. Speaking as a Muslim, it was the start of being defensive, because I've always been sort of an unwitting diplomat for Pakistan, which I consider a kind of second home. There, I don't have to explain myself for being Muslim, but here, I am constantly reminded that I follow a different religious faith from most Americans. And to complicate matters, Pakistan has a reputation as a hiding place for some of Al Qaeda's most wanted. Even though it's one of America's strongest allies in the War on Terror, and Pakistani soldiers and civilians die every day in the fight against Al Qaeda, the associations Americans have with Pakistan are often negative, unfortunately.

It seems like many Americans these days believe that Muslims, even those born and raised here, are somehow sympathetic to or supportive of the terrorists—like they're secretly celebrating when Americans are killed. Do you ever experience divided loyalties between your country and religion?

Not only do I not sympathize with people who commit acts of terror in the name of Islam, but it affects me directly because I lived in Manhattan, and worked in places like Times Square and the New York Stock Exchange that are among the top terrorist targets in the U.S. I worked at Morgan Stanley for four years, which had more office space in the WTC on 9/11 than any other company, and a lot of my co-workers had horrifying stories about surviving the attack. This past May, I took my father to see a play on the same day that a car bomb almost went off in Times Square. The theatre was only one block from where the bomb would have exploded, and the show ended just an hour before it was set to detonate, meaning my father and I could have been killed if the attack had been successfully carried out. So when I hear, for example, that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons, I don't sympathize with the Iranian government. Instead, as an American and a person who could potentially be on the receiving end of those missiles, I feel the same fear that anyone else would. But being Muslim in America, there's the added dimension of not being allowed to feel that way because we're so misunderstood.

Do you feel life has gotten more difficult for Muslim Americans in the wake of 9/11?

Faisal Shahzad, the would-be “Times Square Bomber,” really ruined the accepted profile of Muslim terrorists as being from some foreign country. He was an American citizen with a wife and kids and a good job, so now people think that any Muslim—even their friendly mild-mannered neighbors—could be part of a covert sleeper cell. Otherwise, there were ups and downs over the years since 2001, but overall, things appeared to be improving for us. Then last month everything suddenly came to a head. Right after 9/11, people seemed curious about and only slightly distrustful of Muslims, but now many people just seem to jump to conclusions without even trying to get the facts. If there is a silver lining here, though, it's that today's rage provides an opportunity for reconciliation, and I know that Americans are basically caring and open-hearted people, so they'll eventually summon their better angels. Inclusiveness and tolerance are core American and Islamic values, and Muslims come from the same religious lineage as Christians and Jews. Realizing our commonalities is ultimately what will unite us in the fight against global terrorism.

Since my blog is about animal issues, let's switch gears and address some. I understand that Islam includes a strong tradition of concern for animal welfare. Can you please speak to that?

Well, there are very specific instructions in the Koran about how Muslims are to treat animals used as resources, whether they are beasts of burden or slaughtered for food. Generally speaking, Muslims must take care to minimize the suffering of other species. An example would be Halal meat standards, which require that butchers follow sacred practices to ensure animals slaughtered for food don't suffer unnecessarily. Integral to Halal methods is that Islam expressly forbids the caging, beating, branding, and mutilation of animals***. Quotes from the Koran about animals leave very little gray area about how Muslims must universally respect other species as fellow sentient beings, and it was partly my interpretation of Islam that led me to become a vegetarian. I mean, when I really started to think about it, eating meat just seemed to conflict with my Muslim sensibilities, which include compassion for all forms of life and ecological stewardship.

Every vegetarian has a personal transformation story about why they chose not to eat animals, so what's yours?

I decided to go vegetarian about two and a half years ago after becoming aware of certain factory farming practices, and then reading up on vegetarianism in the context of Islam at a PETA website which I later wrote a blog post about. I was also informed and influenced by books such as Skinny Bitch and documentaries like Food, Inc. Meanwhile, as I learned more about factory farming, I realized how totally contrary this system is to the spirit of Islam. Bear in mind, Islam doesn't dictate that we Muslims can't eat meat—that's why Halal was invented—so I could have easily purchased Halal meat in the city. Yet I felt, as a Muslim and a human being, that vegetarianism was a more compassionate choice, and that my faith was telling me not to eat animals. There's a passage in the Koran that basically says “Whoever has done an atom's worth of good will see it, and whoever has done an atom's worth of evil will see it,” which means we are all accountable for our individual choices, including how we treat animals. And health-wise, within about three months of phasing meat out of my diet, I looked and felt noticeably better, and had lost a few pounds, so it definitely felt right physically, as well.

Since vegetarianism has had such a positive impact on your life, have you considered taking it to the next level by going vegan? I ask this question as someone who was vegetarian for six years before going vegan, and experienced exponential benefits after abstaining from all animal products.

Veganism makes complete sense to me in theory, and it's certainly the ideal I want to move towards in the future. But at the same time, I've found it so much harder to stop eating dairy than meat. I know that's not a very compelling argument for eating these foods, and that dairy cows and egg-laying chickens still suffer, even if they're not raised on factory farms. I look at both my own life and the history of Islam on a trajectory, with progress building on the foundations laid by previous actions. Consider where Islam came out of, for example. Pre-Islamic Mecca, now Saudi Arabia, during the 6th to 7th centuries was a barbaric place where baby girls were summarily killed at birth. Islam helped create a more civilized society that outlawed some of the harshest practices of that era, including unrestrained cruelty to animals. One of Islam's key philosophical tenets, in my understanding, is that we must work towards a better world step-by-step. It's a question of evolution, and vegetarianism is a more evolved diet than meat-eating. And as you follow that trajectory to its logical conclusion, for me personally, it ultimately leads towards veganism.

Do you have Muslim friends who are also veg?

A few, but not many. It's not like I've sought out other vegetarian Muslims by, say, looking for them on Facebook, though. The ones I do know don't cite Islam as their primary reason for not eating meat: they express the same concerns about ethics, environmentalism and health that other vegetarians do. Also, I have many South Asian vegetarian friends, but they're not necessarily Muslim: they're Hindu, Jain or Buddhist.

Regarding vegetarian advocacy, do you find that meat-eating Muslims are more receptive to the vegetarian message when it comes from a member of their own faith?

Yes, because when I tell them about how the vast difference between industrialized agriculture and Halal standards effectively makes factory farming a sacrilege in Islam, I'm speaking from personal experience. So, out of respect for our traditions, Muslims may be more open than other meat eaters to changing their dietary habits—at least in terms of rejecting factory farm cruelty, if not giving meat up altogether. But many people don't know that at least 98% of the meat produced in the U.S. comes from factory farms, so even when they learn that Islam strictly prohibits the consumption of flesh from tortured animals, they may continue turning a blind eye to avoid being inconvenienced.

What are some of the most popular vegan foods in Muslim culture?

There are about 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, and they're spread across the globe, so food traditions vary quite widely. But vegans can enjoy foods from many different Islamic countries. For example, my family comes from the Punjab region of Pakistan near the Indian border, which specializes in dishes made from rice, vegetables and rich curry sauces. Vegans can also find many delicious options from the Middle East, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Morocco. Personally, my favorite food is probably chhole, which is an Indian/Pakistani dish made with spiced chick peas served warm. As a vegetarian, I can confidently say that I'm definitely not missing meat at all—not even my mom's famous chicken!

* In explanation of my consciously-included quotation marks, fans of The Daily Show may recall a recent episode in which Emmy award-wining host Jon Stewart humorously observed that the “Ground Zero Mosque” would be neither a mosque (but rather a community center) nor located at Ground Zero (but rather two blocks away in a former Burlington Coat Factory outlet).

** From The Sound of Music soundtrack. Here's a YouTube video clip from the movie for those whose memories need jogging.

*** See The Animal Ethics Reader, p. 237.

Death by Denial

Study shows meat eaters avoid guilt by believing animals don't suffer

“Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.”
– Mark Twain

Both modern science and common sense tell us that animals bred and killed for food suffer. Factory farms subject billions of animals to torturous abuse every year, and even the numerically few animals raised on comparatively idyllic farms are fattened specifically for slaughter. As a vegan living in an age when the connection between diet and practical morality seems so painfully clear, I frequently wonder why people are not wracked with remorse every time they eat meat.

Some explanation for this perplexing puzzle may be found in a study published recently by the academic journal Appetite which concludes that many meat eaters are in abject denial about food animals' capacity for suffering. Researchers began their investigation with the assumption that subjects would resolve the “meat paradox” of desiring meat but not wanting to harm animals by either 1) becoming vegetarian, or 2) tacitly discounting that eating meat entails killing animals. But upon testing this hypothesis, they instead found participants much more commonly chose a third option—professing a belief that animals are incapable of suffering.

Furthermore, researchers discovered that the very act of eating meat “reduced the (subjects') perceived obligation to show moral concern for animals”—in effect reinforcing their belief that animals don't suffer. Extrapolating from this correlation, one could surmise that meat eaters are caught in a self-perpetuating feedback loop of delusion that feeds their habitual thought and behavior patterns. Meaning, the more meat people eat, the more often they must consciously or unconsciously condition themselves to believe that animals don't suffer, cumulatively strengthening this increasingly unquestioned conviction.

Therapeutic Implications

Like the many other defense mechanisms catalogued by pioneering psychologist Sigmund Freud in the late 19th century, denial enables people to avoid direct confrontation with frightening aspects of the human condition. His daughter Anna was the first to systematically study denial in depth, and she classified it as the reaction of an immature mind to perceived threats. Therapeutically, reliance on defense mechanisms is considered maladaptive because they stunt our ability to cope with reality and preclude psychological progress.

Denying animals' capacity for feeling seems to fit right into this diagnostic model, so what does it mean that the majority of people still eat meat? Is society itself suffering from a mass cultural neurosis that has been overlooked by virtually every practicing clinician? Most psychotherapists eat meat, so the very same denial that keeps people believing that animals don't suffer would also blind psychologists to their own self-deceptions.

With my measly psych BA and only one long-ago year of grad school in counseling under my belt, I am clearly unqualified to say whether denial of animals' suffering should be officially added to the D.S.M. 5, but from my layman's perspective, it appears to meet the key criteria. The fact that the majority of people are in denial about something so important doesn't make this denial any less real—actually, its statistical prevalence and relative invisibility make it even more troubling than mental distortions held only by a minority of outliers. That is, such widespread and socially-sanctioned denial not only alienates individuals from essential parts of their own psyches, but also perpetuates the ongoing victimization of billions of animals the world over every year.

Activist Applications

While it's highly doubtful that institutional psychology will acknowledge denial of animals' suffering as a serious subject of clinical concern anytime soon, activists can still use insights from the psychological literature to raise people's moral awareness of other species. By understanding people's defenses against acknowledging animals' suffering, we can form effective strategic approaches that target the problem's root cause—the mind's reflexive cognitive processes. This particular study is a good place to start, so here are some suggestions for how animal activism can pragmatically apply its findings.

- Since we cannot assume that most meat eaters grasp and accept the basic fact that animals suffer, we must emphasize evidence from ethological, neurological and physiological research showing that they do. We can also point out that farmed animals like cows, chickens and pigs are just as smart and sensitive as our canine and feline friends.

- Having already overcome our own denial about animals' suffering, we activists can use our experience with this paradigm shift to determine whether defense mechanisms impact other areas of our lives, thereby gaining a deeper appreciation for how these conceptual traps insidiously influence people's thoughts, emotions and actions.

- Scientifically speaking, eating meat bolsters the denial that keeps people from realizing that animals do indeed suffer. So, conversely, persuading them to choose vegetarian and vegan meals at least periodically provides personal opportunities to critically examine their beliefs about animals. Encouraging meat eaters to try flexitarian meal plans like Meatless Mondays, Vegan Before 6, or Weekday Vegetarianism allows them to explore compassionate dietary changes without having to face the paralyzing fear of never again being able to taste their favorite foods.

Hub SoMa Launch Party – Thurs. May 27

New downtown SF coworking space a major activist resource

Would you like to be part of an exciting community that is committed to social change? Are you seeking support and resources for a project you're involved in, or an organization you'd like to form? Are you an activist looking to connect with entrepreneurs, artists, fundraisers, community leaders, and other professionals working on different progressive issues in a friendly office environment? 

If you answered “yes” to any or all of these questions, then the Hub is just what you need.

The Hub is a creative coworking space with 25 branches on five continents where
thousands of members connect and collaborate around the work they are doing in various
“change sectors,” from environmental sustainability and community development to

human rights and international investment. It is a place where people from diverse backgrounds meet to help each other reach their world-changing goals, whether it's starting a socially-conscious business or optimizing their non-profit's vast potential. As an actual workspace, the Hub offers all the amenities of an office—from “hot desks” and conference rooms to Wi-Fi and printers—as well as support services provided by mentors and consultants.

While a Berkeley Hub has been operating out of the David Brower Center for some time, a new 8,600-square-foot San Francisco location recently opened in the SF Chronicle Building at Mission and 5th Streets (one block from the Powell BART station) that's three times larger than the Berkeley Hub. They are holding their Launch Party on Thursday, May 27 from 7:00 to 10:00 p.m., and tickets are $10 each. This grand opening event gives animal activists a great opportunity to learn about the Hub, meet some of their members, and start taking advantage of this unique resource.

How can the Hub help animal activists? I recently spoke with Berkeley Hub “Host” and longtime vegan Meredith Walters to find out.

AR: What is your job as a Hub “Host”?

MW: Basically, getting to know members personally and understanding what they're working on so I can connect them with people who can help. This includes everything from making individual introductions to encouraging people to attend our group events.

What are some of the Hub's specific support resources, and how can they benefit animal activists in particular?

We offer a range of programs that enable people from different social change sectors to share their skills, ideas and resources. For example, in the evenings and on weekends, we have panel discussions and speaker presentations on topics like branding, marketing, fundraising, and social networking, as well as other events such as reading groups and film screenings. All of these activities offer people opportunities to learn from and network with one another. I would encourage animal activists who become members to both attend events and organize their own, as well.

Our Peer-to-Peer mentoring groups are a great way for people who are starting projects to bounce ideas off each other, share resources and hold one other accountable to their own goals. We currently have groups in food justice, environmental sustainability and international development—all of which are directly related to animal issues. A lot of innovation happens when activists dialogue with people who have different perspectives, so working within a group allows animal advocates to both learn from and influence non-vegetarians, as well as test their messaging out on them to see whether it resonates.  

Hub members also have access to some very practical resources, like legal and marketing consults for social enterprise development, which is useful to anyone starting or managing a vegan business or animal protection non-profit. They can also use our private conference rooms for meetings, and rent our event space for larger groups.

But the most important resource the Hub offers its members is a shared workspace where they can meet and collaborate with each other. It's the hot-desking aspect that really gets people to connect with others, and where the most profound changes take place. Everyone at the Hub is doing something to find solutions to the world's problems, and that is at its core inspiring. Working for social change is challenging, so we are here to help people stay strong and avoid burnout by transforming their deepest values into action.

How many Hub members are vegans, vegetarians, or animal activists?

Right now, there are numerous vegan and vegetarian members who care about animal issues, but we don't have a large animal rights contingent, so I would love to see more animal activists get involved. In my experience, Hub members are more respectful toward vegans than most people, partly because they're generally open-minded, but also because they're already somewhat aware of the reasons people are vegan. And while not everyone is going to be vegan, Hub members all have their own passions and thrive on hearing about other people's passions, so there are many opportunities for mutual education.

It seems like many Hub Events involve eating. Are vegan options offered?

Food is a central gathering point at the Hub, and when we have potlucks, Brown Bag lunch discussions, Sexy Salad (every Wednesday, when everyone brings in a salad ingredient), and other shared meals, a lot of it is vegan. When I bring food, I always label it as vegan with a “help yourself” sign next to it. As a result, my diet comes up often in conversation, giving me the chance to tell people about the reasons I don't eat animals. And a few people have told me they're going vegan because of conversations we've had: they get excited about it and want to connect with a vegan who can guide them through the transition.

To learn more about the SoMa Hub:

- Attend the Launch Celebration on Thursday, May 27 from 7:00 to 10:00 p.m.

- Come to an open house between 9:00 and 11:00 a.m., Monday through Friday

- Arrange a tour during business hours (9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday) by emailing tim.nichols@the-hub.net or calling 415-624-5881

- Check out the Bay Area Hub events calendar 

- Join the Hub (membership starts at just $25 a month)

Soul Food-For-Thought: The Real Roots of Liberation

Read my review (with photos) of this singular San Francisco Black History Month benefit

In February, I attended the Soul Food-For-Thought event at San Francisco's historic Herbst Theatre, presented by and benefiting the International Fund For Africa (IFA). More than 500 people enjoyed this evening of great vegan food and awesome live entertainment while being exposed to a message of dietary compassion tailored for the Bay Area's African-American community, which made up most of the audience.

I enjoyed Soul Food-For-Thought so much that I wrote a review of it which James McCaffry from the Studios of FotoGrafis then produced as a four-page (11-by-17-inch) booklet under the auspices of ark magazine. This beautifully-rendered brochure includes McCaffry's own photographs of the hosts, sponsors, performers, speakers, and guests. Reading it is the next best thing to being there!

Check out the review

Hitler Farted!

Der Führer’s meat-powered flatulence disorder — and part-time vegetarian curative

Though modern historical scholarship has conclusively proven that Adolph Hitler was not actually a vegetarian*, many people even today still persist in believing that he was. Actually, Nazi Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels first started spreading this strategic misinformation more than 75 years ago to cloak the chancellor in an otherworldly aura simply so he’d be seen as Germany’s saintly savior. But, like most myths, this one does actually contain at least a tiny grain of truth — only in this case it’s a pretty humiliating back-story (or behind-story) that the Third Reich’s arch-villainous architects kept carefully hidden from the outside world.

In reality, Herr Hitler periodically practiced vegetarianism to combat the “excessive flatulence” from which he chronically suffered. The Führer’s ongoing gastric struggles have been corroborated by many reliably authenticated sources, including his own personal physician, Dr. Theo Morell, who wrote in his journal that he once witnessed Hitler endure a bout of “colossal flatulence…on a scale I have seldom encountered before.” In his groundbreaking book Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust, author Charles Patterson wrote that Hitler found “fewer stains in his underwear” when he reduced his meat consumption, and “became convinced that eating vegetables improved the odor of his flatulence.” However, Hitler biographers attest that he certainly didn’t stick with vegetarianism, and in fact was a bona fide glutton for ham, liver, sausage, and (his favorite) stuffed squab.

A friend and creative collaborator of mine from college once explained to me his “cosmic anchor” theory of comedy, which basically propounds that farting is the most primordial form of humor (because the anus is like a second mouth that “speaks” behind our backs and beyond our control, like some mutant strain of rectal Tourette Syndrome). Just think of the hysterical irony, in this particular instance, of a flatulent fascist dictator who can’t seem to stop “talking out of his ass,” as it were. I can just see Hitler at a sprawling public rally delivering a raging rant accusing the Jews of being foul and disgusting animals, banging his fist on the podium and Seig Heiling the rabid crowd — and during a dramatic pause in his spittle-flecked harangue, blasting a massive bugler out the back of his beige jodhpurs that is picked up by the custom Neumann CMV3 condenser microphone and broadcast over loudspeakers to the entire crowd and live radio audiences throughout occupied Europe! Actually, Hitler liked keeping vicious attack dogs around for his amusement (meaning he enjoyed brutally beating them into submission), so in this and other scenarios, he probably would have blamed them for his own embarrassing bumburps!

Despite all these fun-poking antics aimed at smelly old man Hitler for his congenital gas-passing ailment, I do feel it’s worth exploring whether he was onto something…maybe our bodily emissions can be better managed (to smooth social interactions and slow climate change) through improved dietary habits. While there seems to be no real consensus about whether a vegan diet produces less toxic wind than eating meat, dairy and/or eggs, here are a few claims (provided with a general disclaimer about not actually knowing their scientific merits) that I’ve gathered on the subject:

• According to one article published in 1913 (which Hitler himself must have surely read), “The longer the feces are retained in the intestine, the longer the bacteria act upon them, thus causing fermentation and decomposition…A plentiful meat diet also favors the formation of gases (because) the digestive fluids are not able to fully digest it.” Of course, those prone to flatulence are advised to avoid foods that leave “residual matter” in their wake, such as cabbage and beans (the proverbial “musical fruit”).

• A Q&A in the online magazine VegFamily suggests that sticking to a healthy vegan diet of fresh fruits and vegetables, organic whole grains, and lots of water produces relatively little flatulence. Echoing the claims made in the article cited above, respondents assert that (just like meat) processed vegan “junk food” takes longer to digest than natural foods, and therefore results in greater amounts of gas.

• The lifestyle website AskMen.com declares that “Vegetarians might fart as often as meat-eaters, but their ‘serenades’ do not smell as much because vegetables produce less hydrogen sulfide. The more sulfur rich the foods you eat, the more your farts will stink because bacteria will generate sulfides and mercaptans as they break down the nutrients.” Their preventative advice includes steering clear of fumigant foods such as cauliflower, taking Bean-O supplements, and ingesting herbal essences like chamomile, peppermint, sage, and marjoram.

* While Hitler openly praised vegetarianism (mainly because he idolized the classical composer Richard Wagner), the National Socialist Party legally outlawed independent vegetarian societies throughout the Fatherland and their expanding empire, forcing these groups to either join the centralized Nazi Living Reform Movement or disband. So, while vegetarianism itself wasn’t strictly criminalized under fascism, all autonomous organizations were, specifically meaning they could no longer choose their own socio-political positions or espouse non-violent philosophies. Nevertheless, in bold defiance of the totalitarian state, courageous vegetarians continued to hold clandestine meetings that were unaffiliated with official government institutions, routinely risking enslavement and probable extermination in concentration camps.

Witness to Suicide at Powell and Market

Onlookers laugh and cheer as a man jumps to his death – and we wonder why more people aren’t vegan?!

I was there today when a man killed himself before a live audience of bystanding spectators in San Francisco.

I was biking down Market Street when I saw a massive crowd gathered near the Powell Street cable car turnaround. They were frantically yelling, a combination of anxious cries and excited cheers, as though watching the climax of an intense sports match. I figured it must be a fistfight, but I was wrong…because the shouting then rose to a sudden cacophony punctuated by a dense fleshy thump.

I had never heard a sound like that in my life, and wondered what the hell it could be. Traffic had stopped, people were rushing across Market, and police & ambulances were screeching in, so I crossed the street to find out, and saw, right on the north side of the Powell BART station fence, a handful of cops standing over a shirtless man lying face-down in a bloody pool on the sidewalk. People were pointing up at the window ledge of the third-floor apartment above the “Forever 21” store he’d just jumped from, and holding cameras in the air snapping pictures of the corpse.

This nightmarish scenario was disturbing enough, but far worse was overhearing numerous young people actually laughing and saying things like “Oh shit! Did you see that?!” and “That was so cool!” One twenty-something woman nearby even loudly bragged to her friend on a cell phone that “I was yelling ‘Jump! Jump!’ And then he jumped!”

We may well wonder what caused 32-year-old Dylan Yount to take his own life. I don’t know his reasons, but maybe it had something to do with being sick and tired of living in a world where shit like this happens?

Call me naïve or out of touch, but I was actually shocked that some people’s response to seeing a fellow human violently end his tortured existence was about the same as if they’d just watched a YouTube video of a guy getting repeatedly kicked in the balls.

It’s existentially insane that, in this day and age, supposedly civilized folks consume actual, real-life atrocity as a form of entertainment while it's actually happening. The fact that these grotesque inhuman deformities actually felt comfortable broadcasting their repugnant monstrosity to everyone within earshot makes my heart ache. But what makes it so much worse is that they actually felt compelled to publicly proclaim the deadness of their souls.

Significantly, all of those I personally observed deriding Dylan's death were young adults ranging from their late-teens to mid-twenties. It's not really a generational thing though: callous, casual cruelty rears its ugly head in every century, whether it's the Roman Coliseum, Jack the Ripper or Kitty Genovese. I just expect better in 21st century San Francisco. Regardless of place or time, those who laughed as Dylan died clearly have no manners, no shame, no decency, and perhaps no capacity for compassion.

And I really can’t help but wonder, what in the world made them that way? Did they suffer horrific, unspeakable physical abuse and psychological torture as children? Or are they just unbelievable assholes? Either way, what's their excuse? And does their vile brutality and lack of empathy indicate that, ultimately, humankind has no future?

The Killing Joke

Years ago, when I was newly vegan, I spent many a Friday night with other activists on the sidewalk outside of the Metreon multiplex in downtown San Francisco handing out “Why Vegan?” booklets while showing “Meet Your Meat” and other factory farming videos on a battery-powered TV/VCR. Most people would walk by without acknowledging my offer of a booklet and deliberately avoid looking at the TV images. Some would stop and watch for awhile, and maybe take a leaflet, or even cry and thank us for being there, putting a little money in our donation jar.

And a few – always young men – would make a big show of laughing out loud as animals were slaughtered onscreen. Similarly, when I co-hosted “Vegan TV” on the SF community access station, we’d sometimes get calls from Beavis and Butthead types calling us faggots, pussies or whatever because we refused to eat meat.

In those days, such things rarely phased me, because I had an explanation. I figured these young guys joked about animal cruelty and those who repudiated it because admitting to anyone (especially their male peers) that they had feelings about anything (or anyone) left them vulnerable to ridicule, rejection and being branded “gay” – so laughing at others’ pain was their way of acting tough.

Hey, I was involuntarily subjected to junior high school too, and remember what a powerful force peer pressure was at that age, and how often I conformed to others’ rigid and distorted definitions of manhood simply because I lacked a strong self-identity and the courage to be myself. So, armed with this analysis, I deduced that the boys’ humorous reaction to slaughter footage was both a result of nervous laughter and a way for them to impress their friends. It seemed rather pathetic, but understandable: because in a way I’d been in their shoes before.

But now, after years of practicing animal rights advocacy and discovering denial firmly entrenched in every stratum of society, I no longer find such simplistic explanations of casual cruelty satisfactory. Mainly because even most so-called “mature adults” never really grow up when it comes to fundamentally respecting non-human species. Many don't even respect fellow human beings.

Even as I write, and even as you read, somewhere in the world animals are being tortured for people’s amusement in circuses, rodeos, horse races, game reserves, dog fighting rings, and other “entertainments” that by all rights should have been abolished along with human slavery long ago. But there's also still human slavery, war, starvation, terrorism, and torture going on this minute as well. There are millions of poor, homeless children right here in prosperous America. In one way at least, my experience today only served to reinforce my grave doubts about the true nature of our species — that humankind, as a whole, is stubbornly numb to the sufferings of others, whether or not we are directly responsible for their misery.

Then again, in my despair, there’s a whole other side to this story that I’ve neglected to tell. That is, of the hundreds of people who today saw a man fall to his doom, most did not laugh or cheer: they cried openly in the arms of loved ones, or sought emotional solace from a stranger, or stood silently awestruck alone contemplating the inconceivable. If not so distressed by the relative minority whose heartless behavior I found so nauseating, I might have stuck around awhile longer to grieve with those whose humanity seemingly remained intact, and perhaps found my faith in people restored. Instead, numbed to the core of my being, I rode on, and decided hours later to share my thoughts here in this public journal.

I guess it just goes to show that every life experience presents both challenges to and opportunities for growth, and what we choose to make of them is often largely up to us. Meaning, in the course of our Earthly journey, we always need to beware of mistaking one small aspect of reality for the whole truth.

If you are feeling suicidal, please call a suicide hotline and get the help you need!

“The Simpsons” – Top 10 Animal-Friendly Episodes

A best-of list spanning two-plus decades of humane humor

Encompassing 21 seasons and 450 episodes, “The Simpsons” is the longest-running sitcom in television history, and this January 10th, Fox will culminate its year-long celebration of the classic cartoon's 20th anniversary with a documentary special by Super Size Me director and star Morgan Spurlock. Diehard fans already know that “The Simpsons” pioneered a subversive style of animal rights comedy never before seen on the small screen. So, at the dawn of a new decade deluged with Top 10 lists, I decided to pay this prime-time program homage by showcasing the 10 best animal-centric “Simpsons” episodes (so far, in chronological order).

1. Episode 1: “Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire” – In the series premiere, Homer loses the family's Christmas money betting at the dog track, but then brings home the best present ever — a rescued racing greyhound named Santa's Little Helper. Laugh Line (Homer to Bart, who wants to adopt the abandoned dog his father bet on): “But he's a loser. He's pathetic! He's...a Simpson.”

2. Episode 29: “Bart's Dog Gets an F” – The family's misbehaving canine attends obedience school, where Bart refuses to implement the draconian instructor's pain-based training methods. Laugh Line (Bart): “Now...Sit! I said, Sit! Um, take a walk. Sniff that other dog's butt. See? He does exactly what I tell him.”

3. Episode 43: “Lisa's Pony” – Homer finally grants his 8-year-old daughter's wish for a pony, but she relinquishes her beloved horse after learning that dad must work nights to pay for expensive stabling. Laugh Line (Homer): “Marge, with today's gasoline prices, we can't afford not to buy a pony!”

4. Episode 54: “Dog of Death” – After Santa's Little Helper runs away from home, infamously villainous billionaire tyrant Mr. Burns plucks him from the pound and turns him into a vicious attack hound — but his love for Bart ultimately overcomes his killer conditioning. Laugh Line (Ben Caseyesque veterinarian): “I love animals. I spend my life saving them, and they can't thank me. Well, the parrots can.”

5. Episode 79: “Whacking Day” – Each May, the town of Springfield observes a traditional holiday that entails beating snakes to a pulp with clubs, but Bart and Lisa are able to save the serpents' lives with the help of soul crooner Barry White's earth-shaking basso profundo. Laugh Line (“Whacking Day” song sung by children's choir): “Oh Whacking Day, oh Whacking Day! Our hallowed snake-skull cracking day! We'll break their backs, gouge out their eyes; their evil hearts we'll pulverize! Oh Whacking Day, oh Whacking Day! May God bestow His grace on thee!”

6. Episode 98: “Bart Gets an Elephant” – Bart wins a real live pachyderm from a radio call-in show, but “Stampy” proves a neighborhood hazard, so Bart and Lisa must persuade Homer to send his colossal pal to a sanctuary instead of selling him to an ivory dealer. Laugh Line (Homer): “Lisa, a guy who's got lots of ivory is less likely to hurt Stampy than a guy whose ivory supplies are low.”

7. Episode 133: “Lisa the Vegetarian” – Lisa gives up eating meat, but almost cracks under constant ridicule at home and school — until a pep talk by Paul and Linda McCartney puts her back on the righteous path. Laugh Line (“Actor” Troy McClure, in an “educational” filmstrip): “Don't kid yourself, Jimmy. If that cow ever got the chance, he'd eat you and everyone you care about!”

8. Episode 249: “Treehouse of Horror XI” – In a Free Willy parody, Lisa emancipates a captive bottlenose dolphin named Snorky from an exploitive marine park — but the deposed “King of the Dolphins” then enslaves humanity for banishing his kind to the sea eons ago. Laugh Line (Snorky): “They made me do tricks like a common seal!”

9. Episode 252: “Lisa the Tree Hugger” – Trying to win the affections of über-activist Jessie Grass, Lisa (channelling Julia Butterfly) refuses to disembark from an ancient redwood until it is spared from logging. Laugh Line (Jessie): “I'm a level-five vegan — I won't eat anything that casts a shadow.”

10. Episode 417: “Apocalypse Cow” – Bart joins 4H to drive cool combine harvesters, but winds up having to save the calf he raised from butchery — with a cow-costumed Homer nearly being killed in a fully-automated slaughterhouse. Laugh Line (Bart): “Sorry, Lis, I can't be a vegetarian — I love the taste of death!”

Hope you enjoy these amazingly amusing episodes — and learn more about “The Simpsons” at thesimpsons.com!

Minestrone Is Murder?

Maybe so — but carnivores still kill many more plants than vegans do

Day after day, meat eaters try to discredit ethical veganism with an astonishing array of pseudo-philosophical protests, but the recurring assertion that “Plants have feelings, too” is particularly vexing — mainly because it’s so transparently insincere. Think about it: Why are meat eaters so remarkably resistant to recognizing the horrific suffering of “food” animals, yet simultaneously eager to anthropomorphize faceless fruits and vegetables that utterly lack the brains, central nervous systems, and sense organs (like eyes and ears) generally associated with sentience? When carnivores insist that plants’ feelings matter, it seems to me that they disingenuously want to appear genuinely concerned about hurting innocent herbs, when in fact the sneaky subtext peeking out from underneath the edge of this compassionate facade is a self-serving accusation that we vegans are as guilty of murder as the most unrepentant flesh-obsessed gourmand.

The latest example of this perennially weed-like phenomenon sprouted up yesterday in Natalie Angier’s New York Times article “Sorry, Vegans: Brussels Sprouts Like to Live, Too” — a title which insinuates, baselessly, that plants’ faculty for feeling somehow negates the moral authenticity at the core of animal rights. Now, please understand, I am by no means criticizing Angier for promoting the hypothesis that all living organisms are imbued with some form of consciousness: actually, I find the eminent behavioral botanist’s quotation touting plants’ capacity for “sensory modalities and abilities we normally think of as only being in animals” quite compelling. What I do object to, strenuously, is that any carnivore (much less a mainstream science journalist) would have the unmitigated chutzpah to charge that it’s hypocritical for us vegans to shout “meat is murder” while allegedly committing mass herbicide — especially because meat eaters kill so many more plants than we do in the course of daily dining!

Need proof? Then check out these stunning statistics:

• To yield a single pound of edible meat, a chicken must consume about 2 pounds of grain*, a pig must consume about 4 pounds, and a cow must consume 10 to 16 pounds. So, every time someone eats meat, they kill 2 to 16 times as many plants than they would by eating vegan.

• Slaughtering approximately 65 billion animals worldwide for meat each year requires that one-third of humanity’s grain harvest be fed to livestock. This calculation accounts for 80% of U.S. corn crops and about 99% of U.S.-produced soy meal, but not the vast fields of grass and other naturally-growing plants upon which free-range cows, sheep and goats graze.

• According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, livestock production occupies 70% of all the land used for agricultural purposes, and nearly one-third of the Earth’s entire landmass. This boundless terrain was once unspoiled habitat for billions of native plants and animals who were either displaced or eradicated — some to the point of extinction. The beef industry, for instance, is the driving force behind the destruction of Brazil’s Amazon rainforest, one of the planet’s most diversity-dense regions, with nearly 80% of deforested land being used for ranching.

Strictly speaking, it’s impossible for us to physically survive without consuming other living entities — just as billions of microbial creatures subsist on the proteins in our bodies. But contrary to the misleading myths of popular belief, veganism isn’t about achieving perfection, purity or sainthood (or, for that matter, smugly proving our superiority or political correctness). Rather, the point is to consciously make pragmatic lifestyle choices that significantly reduce the amount of pain, agony and death suffered by others as a result of our privileged existence, and persuade people to do the same in the name of non-violence.

So, the next time some smart-ass carnivore tries to excuse their lethal fauna-filled diet by feigning sympathy for faultless flora, just look them right in the eye and tell them straight out: If you really, truly care about the plight of exploited plant beings, then go vegan now!


* I originally cited a website claiming (inaccurately, it seems) that the grain-to-meat conversion ratio for chickens is 6:1. Tip of the hat to Erik Marcus for pointing out the error.

Go Figure! The Mathematics of Dietary Death

Computing the cost of plant vs. flesh food production in animals’ lives

Anyone who’s been vegan for any length of time has heard the dizzying array of specious arguments for why people are supposedly meant to eat meat, dairy and eggs. These reasons range from the nutritional (“we need animal protein to live”) to the Biblical (“God gave humanity dominion over all the Earth’s creatures”) to the ethical. Yep, that’s right: some omnivores have the cajones to claim that vegans are responsible for killing more animals than flesh eaters!

Oregon State University professor of animal science Steven Davis, for one, contends that people who eat beef from cattle fed on grazing pasture spare more animals’ lives than vegans because of all the death supposedly caused by harvesting crops. While Davis’ research has appeared in such prestigious periodicals as TIME magazine and the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, apparently no one bothered to peer-review or fact-check his methodology before publication. That is, a new analysis of the professor’s claim reveals that (surprise, surprise!) his numbers don’t quite add up.

Artist and graphic designer Mark Middleton recently calculated the true impact of food production on two categories of animals: domestic species specifically slaughtered for human consumption, and wild species killed as a consequence of agricultural harvesting. What’s more, he translated his findings into an easy-to-read graph* that enables comparison of how different diets (i.e., plant vs. flesh foods) impact animals’ lives — both by the numbers and as an interactive (filterable) visual representation of these otherwise abstract values:



Extrapolating from this diagram, we find that:

• Eating chicken flesh takes about 100 times the number of animals’ lives as eating the equivalent caloric content of vegetables.

• Subsisting on only grains for an entire year would likely cost fewer than two animals (e.g., field mice) their lives.

• Contrary to Davis’ central assertion, the number of wild animals who die as a result of beef production is much greater than occurs in the harvesting of all plant food varieties combined.

Middleton arrived at his revised conclusion by incorporating into his formula some criticisms of Davis’ work by researchers Gaverick Matheny and Andy Larney which, upon even cursory consideration, seem so basic that it’s amazing they even had to bring them up. I mean, it doesn’t take a mathematician to know that we can feed more people per acre by using land to raise crops rather than cattle, as Matheny opined, or to understand Larner’s contention that counting animals killed by predators (in addition to, say, chemical pesticides and mechanical threshers) skews the end results. So Middleton’s new presentation begs an obvious question: why did Davis’ claims go so completely unchallenged by the mainstream media and the scientific establishment when he made them?

Opinion makers’ unquestioning acceptance and promotion of Professor Davis’ flawed theory says more about meat eaters’ desperate psychological need to justify their violent destructiveness than anything else: apparently, people want to continue eating animal flesh so badly that they will even unconsciously create and cite conspicuously inaccurate data to make the case that omnivores are ethically superior to vegans. Once again, we vegans have the truth on our side, but there remain some lingering doubts about its persuasive value, because people basically believe what they want to believe. If history is any guide, many omnivores will continue to invent and propagate ways of salving their guilt by convincing themselves that meat is not murder but mercy — no matter how much incontrovertible evidence we vegans present to the contrary.

Related AnimalRightings:

- My 8-page VegNews magazine feature article “The Road to Vegetopia: (Re)Imagining the Future of Food” (illustrated by Mark Middleton)

- My blog post about Middleton’s “Virtual Battery Cage”

* For interested techies, Middleton built this interactive graphic in Adobe Flash using a data visualization library called Flare. Click here for a full explanation of the analysis and mathematical proofs.

Help Farmworkers, Help Farm Animals

New Yorkers: Urge your Senators to vote YES on S.2247

“The African is incapable of self-care and sinks into lunacy under the burden of freedom. It is a mercy to him to give him the guardianship and protection from mental death.”
– Former U.S. Vice President John C. Calhoun regarding slaves (circa 1844)

“This notion that they need to rest is completely futile. They don’t like to rest. They want to work seven days.”
– Hudson Valley Foie Gras Co-Owner Izzy Yanay regarding farmworkers (circa 2009)

It is our moral obligation as citizens of a democracy to ensure that every worker in America has the same basic rights as every other, regardless of what job they do. Yet even now in the 21st century, as the result of a 71-year-old compromise with segregationist Dixiecrats during the New Deal era, those who toil in New York State’s agricultural fields and factory farms are still denied the fundamental benefits that the rest of us take for granted. And I’m talking here about some of the most basic employment expectations, like getting at least one day of rest a week, disability insurance, collective bargaining options, and overtime pay for working extra hours.

Though California passed the first laws rectifying this disparity in the mid-1970s and most other states have since followed suit, New York still suffers the unrepentant repercussions of blatantly racist government policies more than seven decades after their codification. To redress this longstanding injustice, a broad coalition of labor advocates, student activists, religious groups, and state legislators are now unifying behind the Farmworkers Fair Labor Practices Act (A.1867/ S.2247), and after a long struggle are finally within reach of victory. I’m glad that some animal advocates have already cast their lot with the workers, but hope that the animal protection movement as a whole will join them in this fight for equal treatment under the law, because:

1) We vegans eat the New York-grown apples, grapes, potatoes, corn, cabbage, and other plant foods that farmworkers help raise and harvest, and our purchases may well be subsidizing an exploitive system that denies tens of thousands of people the guaranteed protections that we enjoy.

2) If he were alive today, trailblazing farm unionizer and fellow vegan Cesar Chávez would be leading the charge for these workers’ civil rights.

3) Of the approximately 80,000 farmworkers employed by New York State’s multi-billion agriculture industry, more than half are documented migrant workers and illegal immigrants of Latino descent who are compelled to endure terrible working conditions under threat of losing their livelihoods and being forced out of the U.S.

4) There is no ethical justification for economically discriminating against people based on ethnicity, class or nationality.

5) Achieving parity for those working in factory farms will also dramatically reduce incidences of animal abuse.

Workers are Animals, Too

There are probably some animal advocates out there who would argue that siding with people who harm animals for a living is speciesist because it prioritizes farm workers’ interests over animals’ well-being. While I acknowledge the kernel of philosophical legitimacy at the core of this claim, I would counter by pragmatically pointing out that ignoring the farmworkers’ plight helps neither them nor the animals, but rather bolsters the power of those who abuse both — the factory farm owners. Just as Nobel Prize-winning author and holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel said, “We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” In this case, the only way we can take the animals’ side is by siding with the workers against the industry that oppresses them.

Please bear with me while I explain. These laborers typically work 60 to 70 hour weeks, and yet most still live below the poverty line. Many are allowed to reside in the U.S. only temporarily via the H-2A guest worker program, which strictly prohibits them during that limited period from working for anyone besides the employer who originally hired them. Such restrictions leave these legal workers completely at farm owners’ mercy, and reluctant to petition for even the meager protections they are entitled to because reprisals could very well entail not only job loss but summary deportation.

Meanwhile, the health and safety risks most factory farm hands undergo on a daily basis are far beyond what American workers in virtually every other industry are ever exposed to. Being kicked by cows and bitten by pigs are the least of these hazards: peer-reviewed field studies indicate that an inordinate number of U.S. farmworkers are afflicted with acute and chronic respiratory diseases from constantly inhaling air that is rife with toxic gases emanating from the tons of feces and urine expelled by farm animals at a typical concentrated livestock facility. Farmworkers also suffer disproportionately from symptoms such as diarrhea, nausea, abdominal pain, vomiting, and fever, but show up to work every day without fail because their employers are not required to provide them with paid sick leave, and taking a day off without pay could mean losing one’s job altogether.

On Down the Food Chain: Victims Become Victimizers

As far as how this affects farm animals, think about it: such vulnerable employees are unlikely to report labor law violations, so they certainly aren’t going to speak up when someone breaks the state’s minimal animal welfare statutes. In fact, surveys show most farmworkers are never even informed that such laws exist. What’s most disturbing and destructive about this situation is that the frustrations caused by working excruciatingly long hours for low wages in stressful and often dangerous conditions greatly increase the probability that farmworkers will commit egregious acts of animal cruelty.

First, it’s essential to understand that the factory farm environment is intrinsically antithetical to ethical norms. Consider, for example, what workers go through every day at Hudson Valley Foie Gras in Upstate New York. Inside giant warehouses, tens of thousands of ducks are confined in body-sized stalls and force-fed excessive amounts of corn-mash for a period of 30 days before they are killed and their bloated and diseased livers harvested for a high-priced gourmet delicacy. Once the compulsory gorging cycle begins, the birds will only accept food from the same person at each meal, so workers (who must individually feed hundreds of animals each day) spend about 12 hours a day (interspersed throughout each 24-hour period), seven days a week for four full weeks shoving pneumatic tubes down ducks’ esophagi and pumping them full of food. On the 31st day, some workers get a day off, then come back to work after a 24-hour leave to start the cycle all over again.

Second, if this sounds sick to you, remember: the agriculture industry seriously maintains that these conditions are perfectly normal, healthy and “humane” for both the workers and animals. To reiterate, the description above is not an aberration but the legal and accepted norm for American foie gras production, and similarly horrific conditions are common at other factory farms. Yet, as we animal activists know all too well from viddying ultraviolent sinnys of undercover investigations showing workers kicking chickens like footballs and lethally smashing piglets’ heads against the floor, superfluously abusive incidents are also all too common behind the bloody walls of these licensed hellholes.





The New York State Assembly has already passed their version of the Farmworkers Fair Labor Practices Act (A.1867), and 28 of the 32 votes we need for a majority in the Senate have been secured. It’s therefore looking pretty good, but influential agribusiness lobbies are actively pressuring lawmakers to defeat this measure, so we need to make one final push to get this bill passed. With the Senate due back from their summer recess in September, you can make a difference now by checking whether your State Senator is already a co-sponsor of S.2247. Depending on their status, contact their office and take one of the following actions:

- If they oppose: Tell your Senator that, as a constituent and a voter, you strongly believe in equal treatment under the law for farmworkers, and urge them to reconsider their position on this important issue. You may wish to mention that polls show New Yorkers overwhelmingly support expanded rights for farmworkers.

- If they are already on board: Let your Senator know that you greatly appreciate their support for this bill, and urge them to 1) persuade their colleagues who have not yet signed on that it is time for New York to stop denying farmworkers the fundamental rights they have earned and deserve, and 2) work to put this bill on the legislative agenda so the full Senate can finally vote on it.