Worshipping At The Temple of Grandin

» February 1st, 2015

Temple Grandin is perhaps the world’s most-recognized authority on farm-animal welfare. As the subject of an admiring HBO film, she has a lot of fans. Foremost among them are journalists on the agriculture beat. Whenever an animal-welfare perspective is required, it seems the first person tapped for a quote is Temple Grandin.

But Grandin is a paid industry consultant. She profits financially by designing industrial slaughterhouses. She supplements her income by writing books and delivering speeches about those designs. Whatever animal welfare advice she offers should always be framed in the context of her monetary connection to industrial agriculture.

It should also be noted that big agriculture—big beef in particular—adores Grandin. She approaches agricultural “reform” from a compellingly safe perspective, one as much informed by her Ph.D. in animal science as her autism.

The notion that Grandin’s autism provides unique insight into animal perspectives curries considerable favor with the general public, thereby further enhancing her credibility and reputation as a person who cares deeply about animals. Big Ag plays on this association brilliantly. Journalists help them do it.

Grandin’s allegedly unique connection to animal lives is routinely reified through visually arresting images. Here’s Grandin hugging a horseHere she is surrounded by a brace of cows. Here she is petting a pig. Never do we see Grandin with an animal being slaughtered. That would sully the image.

Obviously, one would think, Grandin’s empathy for these animals runs deep, deep enough at least for us to trust her as a viable source of information on their welfare.

But her real job is to help agribusiness kill them.

Read more.

77 Responses to Worshipping At The Temple of Grandin

  1. John T. Maher says:

    TG is a human with a autism disorder within a spectrum of that term. It is a cultural myth that her autism allows her an insight into how an animal sense, perceives and processes the information that forms its world. I know several autistic persons, some with PhDs, and they range from animal haters to indifference to those who are comforted and loved by critters. None of them claims TG’s abilities. I believe her entire career is little different than that of how certain aboriginal cultures viewed the mentally ill — as bringers of great wisdom and insight unavailable to mortals and totally unverifiable and unquantifiable. Because our culture worships science as a replacement for immanence the same logic applies mirabile dictu: so-called normal non autistic persons are not afforded the same insight and so are not privileged with TG’s supposed insights into the minds of animals. Thus TG is no better than the Great Oz in the ‘Wizard of’ book or any other relabeled shaman. Let’s concentrate on animal agency and attempting to understand what an animal really wants.

    TG’s own website shows she specifically allows for the use of electric cattle prods and in religious slaughter allows an animal 30 seconds to die before she recommends finishing the job with a bolt gun. Sounds like institutionalized suffering to me. When she does resort to the gloss of science it is basically a Mengele type checklist of allowable suffering. That is what she does, she tally’s suffering and decrees what she would allow. Why not allow none?

    http://www.grandin.com/ritual/maintain.welfare.during.slaughter.html

  2. Ellen Crain says:

    You are so right about Grandin. She is being used by agribusiness to help them appear concerned about animal welfare as the animals are herded into the death chutes. This view need to get out to the general public.

  3. Rucio says:

    Autism, as I understand it, is a social disorder above all, manifesting as an inability to read or respond to social cues. That would hardly suggest that it can provide special insight into the lives of others. Perhaps rather Grandin has allowed it, with lip service to sensitivity, to provide a model of sociopathic compartmentalization and lack of real empathy necessary for the animal slaughter industry.

  4. Robin Lamont says:

    Thanks you, James McWilliams. The glorification of Temple Grandin as someone who truly cares about animal suffering is akin to the Emperor’s New Clothes. It’s good to see the layers stripped away.

  5. Dear James:

    You neglected to mention that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals gave Grandin an award for being a “Visionary,” The Humane Society of the United States refers to her as a “[r]enowned animal welfare scientist,” and many other so-called “animal advocates,” do not recognize her as a sock puppet for industry and hold her out as having some deep and almost mysterious insight into animal welfare. So the problem is not that journalists turn to her; the problem is that journalists turn to her because the “animal movement” points them to her.

    I have been writing about the relationship between Grandin and the “animal movement” since the mid-1990s. I know that you and I disagree about the welfarist movement but it is undeniable that it is the welfarists who have provided Grandin with the aura of expertise, not the media.

    Gary

    Gary L. Francione
    Board of Governors Professor
    Rutgers University

    • John T. Maher says:

      Gary,

      Respectfully, one must disagree with the statement that ” the problem is that journalists turn to her because the ‘animal movement’ points them to her”.

      First, PETA is the exception rather than the rule and should be conceptualized as a sort of Thanotopic cult and but a media player on the margins of the animal movement. Their version of welfarism is: death is better than suffering. In brief, PETA is not the animal movement per se and not one’s average neo welfarist.

      Next, it seems that TG is a quasi religious media figure who adds ‘value’ to meat through a ritualistic gloss of welfare. I have heard of writers being directed to get a quote from Grandin because she is a recognizable and cliched presence who functions essentially to allow the reader to be absolve of guilt for eating a bacon burger. I do not make the connection back to the animal movement in this process, which is essentially postmodern and removed from any actual animal as what is being sold by Grandin is a process situated in the minds of the reader concerning guilt and sacrifice.

      Welfarism has its problems, many of which we have considered after reading your works such as your groundbreaking ‘Rain Without Thunder’, but I do not think Grandin’s welfarism is a product of the animal movement, but rather an emotional and cultural salve to the gullible consumer.

      • Mylène says:

        “I do not think Grandin’s welfarism is a product of the animal movement, but rather an emotional and cultural salve to the gullible consumer.”

        With said salve being regularly and eagerly administered to the gullible consumer by various large welfarist organizations in exchange for the donations received from these same consumers. PETA and many of the other large business-like welfarist organizations do just that. Does it also really need to be pointed out that well-funded groups like PETA probably run over a large percentage of the animal advocacy related articles in most newspapers? If you look at articles like this one below in which PETA’s Ingrid Newkirk sings Grandin’s praises, for instance, you’ll see at the bottom that it first ran in a newspaper. The same can be said about HSUS and the large number of PR pieces it also runs, promoting so-called “humane heroes” like Grandin. To downplay the effect of large welfarist organizations on mainstream media’s portrayal of animal issues (and, thus, those welfarist organizations’ effect on the public’s perception and idolatry of someone like Grandin) really ignores the obvious. If anyone has made a media darling and welfarist tool of her, it’s organizations like HSUS and PETA.

        http://prime.peta.org/2010/02/temple-grandin-helping-the-animals-we-cant-save

  6. Barbara Beierl says:

    I couldn’t agree more. It’s unfortunate, but true, that Grandin leaves a great deal to be desired as an animal advocate, to put it mildly. the term, “shill,” might be more accurate. When the slaughter of two oxen, Bill and Lou, of Green Mountain College in Vermont came into the national eye, generating national debate and damning the college, Grandin visited and was so detached from humane issues that it was shocking. Not only did her autism demonstrate itself but also the accompanying Asperger’s. Extremely upsetting for everyone.

    • Linda Mathews says:

      I read about the plight of Bill and Lou some time ago and sent an Email to Green Mountain College imploring them to let these two beautiful souls go to a sanctuary that was more than willing to take them. It did not turn out well. I am not surprised that Ms. Grandin acted in the manner you describe. How can any one who, on the surface, describes themselves as an “animal welfare” advocate, design institutional slaughterhouses. Very disturbing.

  7. Mr. Maher:

    As I mentioned in my comment above, PETA *and* HSUS laud Grandin. She is widely embraced by welfarists and has been widely embraced since the 1990s. I wrote about this in “Rain Without Thunder.” In any event, to say that this simply a matter of a PETA aberration is wrong.

    James’ point was that Grandin is to go-to person for animal welfare because journalists who ought to know better have made her the go-to person. That is wrong. Grandin has been given credibility from the outset by welfarists.

    And I would suggest that the welfarism of the animal movement is itself “an emotional and cultural salve to the gullible consumer.” But that is a different point.

    Gary L. Francione
    Board of Governors Professor
    Rutgers University

    • John T. Maher says:

      Thank you for your comment in response.

      I argue HSUS is merely another media actant and not representative of the animal movement as a whole. When I have seen HSUS, who I do not defend and have had numerous disagreements with, refer to Grandin it has been in the manner of citing her acknowledgement f poor welfare practices such as the chicken industry rating system as a sort of “Look, even your buddy Grandin says you are inhumane”. To refer to James’ point, Grandin’s credibility is only partly due to the agency of BigHumane and I disagree that it is entirely attributable to the ‘animal movement’ an undefined entity sort of like Nixon’s silent majority. Grandin would still exist and be touted by industry even if HSUS and PeTA issued a fatwa upon her. At best she is an advertorial.

      To me the animal movement comprises individual consciousnesses and not corporate entities such as we have mentioned. Welfarism is a psychological step in asking minds to consider incremental choices favoring animals aimed at eliminating the worst abuses of industrial agriculture and, most important, conditioning those minds to ultimately choose to reject all animal consumption. HSUS and PeTA are media players manipulating affect and are removed from working with actual animals.

      So I respectfully disagree with analytic philosophy’s insistence on ethical consistency and say that the welfarists serve a temporal purpose although they are repugnant and ultimately ethically disposable.

  8. Ian Silver says:

    I agree with Gary. It’s not just PETA or HSUS. Here is a link to Grandin’s CV: (http://www.grandin.com/professional.resume.html). Here are a few of the awards listed:

    Harry C. Roswell Award, Scientists Center for Animal Welfare
    The Brownlee Award for International Leadership in Scientific Publication Promoting Respect for Animals, their Nature and Welfare, Animal Welfare Foundation of Canada
    Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation – Humane Ethics in Action, Purdue University
    Humane Award, American Veterinary Medical Association
    Founders Award, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
    Joseph Wood Krutch Medal – The Humane Society of the United States
    Wood Gush Memorial Lecture, International Society of Applied Ethology
    British Society of Animal Science, Yorkshire England, Animal Welfare Award Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty in Animals
    Franklin Pierce College, Alumni Association: Leader of Conscience Award
    Honorary Doctorate – Swedish University, University of Agricultural Science, Uppsala, Sweden, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Degree in Animal Welfare
    American Humane Association – National Humanitarian Award – Pioneering Efforts that Reshaped Animal Welfare in the Livestock Industry
    Liberty Science Center Distinguished Humanitarian Award

    Of course, she has received numerous awards for outstanding service to the animal agriculture industry too.

    It’s really unbelievable how misguided and confused the welfarist movement is.

    • unethical_vegan says:

      “It’s really unbelievable how misguided and confused the welfarist movement is.”

      I’ll take the “welfarists” at COK and MFA over arm-chair abolitionists any day.

      • Ian Silver says:

        Posted from your armchair?

        Abolitionists are creating new vegans every day. I’m sure welfarists are too, though they would create far more if they had a consistent and coherent message. If that were it, it wouldn’t be so bad. But because of their inconsistent message, they actually make it harder for some people to go vegan.

  9. Barb Lomow says:

    Prof. Francione is absolutely correct in reminding us of the substantial role that the animal welfare community has played in turning Temple Grandin into some sort of bizarre celebrity spokesperson for farmed animals. A few examples:

    HSUS’ Paul Shapiro has frequently referred to Temple Grandin in glowing terms, often using the “renowned scientist” description when praising her. Farm Sanctuary’s Gene Baur had Temple Grandin supply a promotional blurb which prominently appears on the back cover his 2008 book, and Farm Sanctuary’s (and formerly PETA’s) Bruce Friedrich has also been known over the years to refer to Grandin in a very reverential manner, as if she is actually a friend to — and a positive force for — farmed animals.

    In this 2013 quote from HSUS’ Director of Corporate Policy, Josh Balk gushes: “Dr. Temple Grandin, perhaps the most renowned animal scientist in history and member of the American Meat Institute Hall of Fame, is the leading opponent to gestation crates. She famously said “We’ve got to treat animals right, and gestation stalls have got to go.”

    Here is a link to the 2014 HSUS “All-Stars” self-congratulatory promotional video choreographed by the “Farm Animal Protection” division. The piece is obviously very calculated and rehearsed, so it’s no mistake that two of Temple Grandin’s books are strategically displayed right off the bat at the 15 second mark. This leaves zero doubt that she is being deliberately touted by HSUS as a champion for farmed animals.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRisKBO8iOU&feature=youtu.be

    The ongoing promotion of Grandin by many in the “farmed animal protection” arena has definitely helped to make her the go-to authority of so-called “humane slaughter”. She’s making a nice living off of the backs — and every other body part — of the farmed animals who she betrays with her “expertise”.

    Grandin recently donated 1/4 million dollars to expand the animal sciences building at CSU: “The facility will be named the Gary and Kay Smith Global Food Innovation Center and will feature a meat and poultry harvesting and processing center; a culinary research and sensory analysis facility; lecture hall; demonstration classroom and retail meat and dairy store and cafe. Additionally, the building will house the Temple Grandin Animal Handling and Education Center, which will include livestock handling and teaching areas designed by Grandin and a fully equipped livestock arena.”

    http://www.meatpoultry.com/articles/news_home/Business/2014/10/Paying_it_forward_to_animal_sc.aspx?ID={8F8BEB35-6360-4A3A-81F3-9E13ECD8C797}

  10. What I find puzzling about all of this is that in 2012, James McWilliams reprimanded those of us who were critical of welfarism for not supporting groups like HSUS. I discuss what happened back then here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-response-to-james-mcwilliams-and-its-not-debatable/#.VM_kxCyQx8G

    Now, James is attacking Temple Grandin, who is, in effect, nothing more than a creation of the welfarist movement. If it were not for the welfarists, Grandin would be just another mediocre hack making animal exploitation more economically efficient. But instead, Grandin has been transfigured into some sort of oracle who, supposedly because of her autism, has special access into nonhuman consciousness. Frankly, anyone who is familiar with Grandin’s work and who thinks she has special access to animal minds does not think much of animal cognition.

    James blames an uncritical media for anyone thinking that Grandin cares about animals. Now I accept that a good chunk of the media is uncritical. But it beyond absurd to overlook that Grandin is regarded as the darling of animal welfare only because the welfarists declared it so going back 20+ years and legitimized her as a media spokesperson for animal welfare issues.

    It’s all rather odd.

    Gary L. Francione
    Board of Governors Professor
    Rutgers University

    • Lucy says:

      2012, now 2015. Is it possible McWilliams has changed his mind with more than 2 years worth of new information.

      The picture here that Prof. Francione seems to be presenting is lacking in it’s way as the lack he has pointed out in McWilliams’ picture – that is. McWilliams has talked of Grandin, the media and agri-business, Prof. F. has talked of Grandin, the media and welfarists.

      • Dear Ms. Lucy:

        James explicitly criticizes the media for treating Grandin as some oracle of animal welfare. But the media do so because the welfarist movement has given Grandin credibility.

        If James agrees with me that the onus belongs with the welfarists, then he should say that.

        If James believes with me that the large welfarist organizations have sold out and have entered into what are, in effect, partnerships with institutional exploiters that result in, inter alia, things like promoting Temple Grandin, then he should, by all means, say so.

        Gary L. Francione
        Board of Governors Professor
        Rutgers University

        • James says:

          My article was not about welfarists! Am I under an obligation to consider every animal-issue through the lens of welfarism? Seems absurd.

          • James:

            You are criticizing the media for treating Grandin as the go-to expert on animal welfare. But that criticism is absurd given that Grandin is treated as the go-to person for animal welfare precisely because the welfarists have made her a celebrity and have given her credibility. So it makes perfect sense that the media treat Grandin as an expert. The welfarist movement does.

            >> Am I under an obligation to consider every animal-issue through the lens of welfarism?<< No, of course not, but in this case, that consideration was plainly required.

            Gary

            Gary L. Francione
            Board of Governors Professor
            Rutgers University

          • Dave says:

            “Am I under an obligation to consider every animal-issue through the lens of welfarism?”

            What a bizarre question under the circumstances.

            Francione is just flatly right that Grandin’s prominence is owed to the support she’s received from the (so called) animal protection industry. Shining a critical light on Grandin without extending that light to the allegedly “pro-animal” groups who champion her is tremendously misleading. Honestly, I can’t conceive of why you’d make such an omission unless there were certain people and groups you didn’t want to offend. (Hmm…)

            Are you “obligated” to consider this issue through the lens of welfarism? No, not necessarily. Only if you want the things you write to be responsible and edifying.

            Dave

        • Lucy says:

          I wrote above that, “The picture here that Prof. Francione seems to be presenting is lacking in it’s way as the lack he has pointed out in McWilliams’ picture – that is. McWilliams has talked of Grandin, the media and agri-business, Prof. F. has talked of Grandin, the media and welfarists”. Prof. Francione is ofcourse correct to point out that a number of welfarist organisations have lionised Grandin, and that this is part of the big picture. But in this discussion, I suggest, there is an underlying contest that is being expressed in McWilliams being taken to task by Prof. F. for not focussing on welfarism – McWilliams can not be allowed to focus in his short piece on the connection with agribusiness, he must focus on welfarism. I suggest that this criticism of McWilliams, allowing its many justified elements, is at base political – political in the sense that it is a manifestation of a contest for supremacy on animal rights in terms of, not just theory, but the model of activism and strategy. As Mr Maher has stated earlier, Prof. F. has done a great service in his book “Rain Without Thunder” of showing the poverty of welfarism and the self-interest and ineffectiveness of large welfarist organisations. However, Prof. F. has also criticised soundly many other contenders in animal rights – anti-capitalists, ALF, non-violent direct action groups like dx – and it seems to me, at heart, there has been an issue amongst the criticisms of challenge to the abolitionist ideas of Prof. F. in terms of theory, the model of activism and strategy. For example, anti-capitalists ideas of animal rights/liberation would essentially destroy Prof. F’s fundamental focus on individual morality, moral consistency, the activism of vegan education, and the strategy of growing the numbers of vegans. Returning to McWilliams’ focus on agribusiness and Prof. F. focus on welfarism, I think is a contest of the sort I have been pointing to. Prof. F has been clear that the consumer holds the cards, that consumers can have have transformative power while producers are, ultimately, passive responders, anything that stands in the way of creating more vegans (vegan consumers) is, therefore, fundamentally bad – welfarism, with its weakness on veganism, its truck with happy exploitation, is a greater enemy, therefore, than agribusiness, and McWilliams, in talking of Grandin, the media and agribusiness, must be confronted simply because he is not talking about welfarism.

          • Dear Lucy:

            First, I am not a supporter of capitalism. I am actually in favor of democratic socialism. I have said that the abolition of capitalism would not necessarily guarantee the recognition of animal rights as the status of animals as property of some sort or another has existed across different economic systems. But to say that I have criticized “anti-capitalists” is simply inaccurate and indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of my position.

            Second, I have been critical of new welfarist groups like DxE because they are new wellfarist, not because they supposedly engage in “non-violent direct action.” DxE is openly supportive of welfarist groups and subscribes to Singer’s utilitarian position. Moreover, I don’t think that standing up in a Chipotle’s and reciting some speech is any more “non-violent direct action” than is distributing literature on abolitionist veganism at a market or other venue.

            Third, the issue I have with McWilliams is clear. McWilliams, who supports welfarists, wrote an essay in which he criticizes the media for treating Grandin as the “go-to” source for animal welfare. McWilliams ignores the crucial fact that the media go to Grandin because the welfarists, whom McWilliams supports, pointed them in that direction. In so doing, McWilliams fundamentally misrepresents the nature of the problem, places the onus on the wrong party, and continues to ignore the fundamental corruption of the animal welfare movement.

            Gary L. Francione
            Board of Governors Professor
            Rutgers University

  11. Kelly Thompson says:

    Temple Grandin has wonderful technical livestock handling and facility structures that most of us beef producers utilize to keep our animals safe and comfortable. Do we eat them? Yes. Do we want them full of chemicals and banged up and treated badly? No. Let’s look at the the scenario if there wasn’t a Temple Grandin? Then what?
    Do you have any idea how many people have appreciated her research and tried to make an effort in keeping these animals comfortable through the feed process.
    Most likely not.
    I comend her efforts and it doesn’t really matter what her physical or mental ability is to me. She is trying to make the best of a factual situation that has and is going to continue on. Food production is a portion of what livestock is used for, we do care where they go and how they are handled.
    Not everyone likes rough handling stock.
    Maybe if you had a little protien and fat in your Brain you would be able to process info and realize this is a good thing she is doing.

    • markgil says:

      how is cutting someone’s throat and hangining them upside down to bleed to death not considered as being “treated badly”?

      btw, the ad hominem attack and protein myth comment do little to support your position which is in favor of violence and exploitation for pleasure and profit. the truth is that grandin’s a paid killer who only makes people more comfortable about the brutal murder of helpless, innocent beings which they are supporting in the name of a momentary taste sensation.

  12. Linda Mathews says:

    I agree completely. I always thought this so-called “connection” was phony at best. We need people to stand-up to big agribusiness who do not benefit from big agribusiness. Give me a real animal lover any day!

  13. Paul Watson says:

    Many slaughterhouses have what are called “Judas Cows”. I remember seeing one at the stockyards in Toronto in the Sixties. We saw the same cow many times leading other cows into the slaughterhouse. When I asked about it I was told it was a “Judas Cow”. The job of the Judas Cow was to calm down the other cows it was leading to slaughter.

    Temple Grandin is simply a Judas Cow. She may have a calming effect upon the animals about to be slaughtered but her purpose is to see that they are slaughtered.

    It’s a good name for her. Judas the betrayer who gives false comfort and whispers lies into the ears of the condemned.

    • Mountain says:

      You realize those “Judas cows” spared the other cows a great deal of suffering, don’t you? The cattle were at a slaughterhouse and were going to be slaughtered either way– the only question was how much they suffered in the process. The “Judas cows” minimized that suffering.

      I don’t mean to paint them as saviors. A savior would save them from a system in which they end up at a slaughterhouse. But no cow is capable of that. Not many people are capable of that.

      If Temple Grandin is a “Judas cow,” then the term is an honor, not a slur. Obviously, there’s much more that she could have done and chose not to do. Judge that however you wish. But she’s done much more than most.

      • John T. Maher says:

        How do you know? Seen any neural mapping studies of brain receptors in bovines entering and leaving slaughterhouse kill chutes under both scenarios? Sublimating fear may be worse than openly acknowledged fear itself. Cattle are prey animals and the Judas cow suppresses the instinctual reaction of running away. Isn’t that bad. What if all cattle resisted? Wouldn’t that renegotiate the terms of life and slaughter and the use of cows at all? I am not sure why you think it is not better to die fully aware than participate in a delusion.

        • Mountain says:

          Oh, Jaunty. In the past, you have rejected neural imaging as worthless. There’s no point in pretending neural imaging is needed here. It’s quite obvious that calm cows suffer less than panicked cows. In a fair situation, in which a panicked cow had some chance of escape, panic could be beneficial. But a slaughterhouse is not a fair situation.

          What if all cattle resisted? Then cattle would suffer more than they currently do. But they would still be killed. Slaughterhouse workers would suffer and beef prices would rise, but all the cows would still be killed. If you want to raise beef prices in order to lower beef consumption, end agricultural subsidies. That would accomplish the same result without all the suffering.

      • Paul Watson says:

        What she does is an abomination. Instead of a cow whisper her whispers lies into the ears of the condemned. She is akin to the Jews who worked for the Nazi’s who escorted the prisoners to the gas chambers. When I first heard of this Temple Grandin I remember saying WTF? Why would anyone thing this is cool. And when did the word Judas ever come to be equated with honor?

          • Paul Watson says:

            Now I know? Well actually I don’t. I reject your definition of Judas as being related to anti-semitism. I said I was not aware facetiously. I was not asking for clarification from you. The word “Judas” in popular usage means traitor or betrayer and has absolutely nothing to do with anti-semitism.

          • Mountain says:

            “I reject your definition of Judas as being related to anti-semitism.”

            So, in the face of evidence, you simply deny? Alright. It’s your life. You can live it however you like.

        • Mountain says:

          Paul, is there a reason you blame the Jews rather than the Nazis? The Jews you refer to were performing forced labor within concentration camps run by Nazis. Whatever you think of their ethical decision (work as ordered or be shot), they weren’t the ones causing the suffering– the Nazis were.

          As for the history of the word Judas, it’s the basis for 2000+ years of Christian anti-semitism. You might want to stop throwing it around casually.

          • Paul Watson says:

            You read in anti-semitism in my comment where there is no such thing. You confuse religion with race. I am indeed anti-Jewish just as I am anti Islam, anti-Christian and anti Mormon. J am not anti Jew. Religion, all religions are the root for the justification of our abuse of animals and each other. Yes the Jews working for the NAZI’s were performing forced labor but they still made the choice to do so. This is no different than the Judas cow. The cow is innocent yet is forced to do the bidding of the master species. I did not say that the Jewish slaves were causing the suffering. I said they were complicit in the suffering just as the Judas cow is complicit. Acting under threat of death still means making the choice between death and collaboration. There were many unknown Jewish heroes who chose death over collaboration. If not for this collaboration, the grisly work would have been done by soldiers and that would have at least provoked some sort of trauma to some of the soldiers involved.

            I do not refer to Judas in the Christian-Judeo definition. I believe the story was a fable. I refer to it as the word “Judas” coming to mean “betrayer” and as such it can be applied to any person, Jewish or not who betrays a friend of cause for material gain or even for one’s own survival.

            Temple Grandin is no saint. She is used to justify slaughter under the pretense that humane slaughter is more ethical than inhumane slaughter when the reality is that all slaughter is inhumane. She has no special affinity with cow or other animals. She does not communicate with them nor does she have empathy. She profits by this charade while the animals die.

          • Mountain says:

            About Grandin: of what, exactly, is she guilty? Her designs lead to less panic among cattle in slaughterhouses. They are slaughtered either way, but that’s a harm that happens regardless of whether her designs are used. Any additional harm caused by panic is lessened by using her designs.

            If the think more cattle die because of Temple Grandin and “humane slaughter,” you’re mistaken. In 1974, when Grandin began working with the meat industry, Americans ate more than 85 pounds of beef per year. Now, Americans eat about 55 pounds of beef each year. Even as the U.S. (human) population has grown, the number of beef cattle has declined from 45 million in the mid-70s to less than 30 million today.

            There’s no reason to think Grandin has caused this decline, but this decline makes it clear that “humane slaughter” isn’t causing people to buy more beef.

          • Mountain says:

            “I did not say that the Jewish slaves were causing the suffering.”

            Then why reserve your disdain for those who aren’t causing suffering (Jews, Judas, Grandin) instead of those who are (Nazis, Romans, the beef industry)?

          • Paul Watson says:

            I fail to see your logic that you say I reserve my distain for for Grandin etc and not the industry. I condemn the industry and by saying she gives comfort to the industry you turn this around to make it seem that I am giving comfort to the industry. What is Grandin guilty of? She is guilty of profiting from the misery of the animals whose death she condones and whose death she is complicit with. I do not know who you are Mountain but you seem to have a need to justify the behavior of Temple Grandin. That’s all well and good but stop the race baiting. This has nothing to do with petty anthropocentric debates. This is about killing and those that confine it or collaborate with slaughter and cruelty.

          • Mountain says:

            “stop the race baiting”

            Nobody was race baiting. I noted the anti-Semitic history of using the word “Judas” to mean “betrayer.” You argued that it’s okay for you to use it that way because you don’t have any personal animus against Jews. Is it okay to use the n-word if people don’t have a personal animus against African-Americans?

          • Paul Watson says:

            I am not aware that the word Judas was ever used in an anti-Semitic manner. The word has come to mean betrayer. It has not racial connotation. I think this discussion is going nowhere. It’s been reduced to semantics. The term “Judas cow refers to a cow not a Jewish cow but a cow of the bovine variety.

          • Mountain says:

            “I am not aware that the word Judas was ever used in an anti-Semitic manner.”

            Well, now you know:

            http://jdstone.org/cr/files/judas_jew_satan_devil_1.html

        • Paul Watson says:

          Well Mountain, that is correct. It is my life and I do live it the way I choose. Nothing unusual about that. Because I disagree with you, you respond that I am in denial. Denial of what? We’re talking semantics here. What a word means? The word Judas may have a meaning in the biblical sense but it has an entirely different meaning in the modern popular sense. For example when used with the word cow, it is a “Judas cow.” Nothing anti-Semitic about that but I’m sure you will read anti-semitism into it. Give it a rest. The point of my original comment is that Temple Grandin is not a friend to the animals. She profits from their death. There can be no denying that one fact.

          • Mountain says:

            “as Judas was called a devil and the devil’s workman, he gives his name to the whole race.”

            –Pope Gelasius I

            Nope, nothing anti-Semitic about that.

  14. John T. Maher says:

    What if cows became unmanageable inside structures? They would have better lives and that is where I disagree with Mr. Mountain. They would see sunshine and feel the seasons and slaughhter would take place under the sky and not in an abstracted and sensorily overloaded human engineered killing factory.

    What Mountain argues for is a welfarist approach and the Judas metaphor fits all welfarists better than a semi scared cow. This reminds me of the time 20 years ago I saw a neighbor killing his buffalo with a 6.5 mm rifle. I suggested a much bigger bore and better aim and even sighted it in which got the job done and I thought at the time I had made a difference. Learn from my mistake.

    • Mountain says:

      Cows should feel sunshine and see the seasons and not end up in slaughterhouses. At all. But the idea that such a world can be achieved by cows panicking and resisting within a slaughterhouse is ridiculous. And that’s why criticism of Temple Grandin is misguided. Her work probably causes animals, who suffer greatly under our system, to suffer a little less at the end. She’s not the one causing the suffering. Because she associates herself with a repugnant system, I’m not inclined to praise her efforts, either, but they are not the source of the suffering.

      • Ian Silver says:

        The problem is that by making these so-called “reduced suffering” slaughterhouses, the general public’s will to decrease consumption of meat is decreased, because they think that “things are OK now that we have humane slaughterhouses (or cage-free eggs, or happy meat or happy dairy of any sort).” Thus, demand for meat products remains at a higher level than it would have been, leading to a greater number of animals suffering than would otherwise have been the case. I know this from experience, because for a few years I bought into the whole happy exploitation line of marketing. If it weren’t for incremental changes brought on by Grandin and others, and promoted by the welfarist industry. When I speak with my family and others about veganism, one of the most common objections they raise is that there is “humane” meat, eggs, dairy, etc., so why change?

        • Mountain says:

          “The problem is that by making these so-called “reduced suffering” slaughterhouses, the general public’s will to decrease consumption of meat is decreased”

          This is a baseless claim. In 1974, when Grandin began working with slaughterhouses, the average American ate 85 pounds of beef per year; today average American eats 55 pounds. If “humane” standards convince some people to continue eating meat, it appears to persuade more people to eat less meat, or give it up altogether.

          • Mountain says:

            Meat consumption as a whole seems to be down about 10% over the last 10 years. Whether you’re looking at beef, or all meat, your claim just doesn’t pan out.

          • Ian Silver says:

            *Sigh!* I didn’t bother spelling this out in my post due to obviousness, but I guess I should have. Please read my post again. Here is the relevant quote: “demand for meat products remains at a higher level than it would have been…” The fact that overall beef consumption in some countries may have gone down is irrelevant. What I’m saying is that if it weren’t for welfarists sewing confusion, meat consumption would have gone down more. How much more is impossible to say. However, anyone who has done even the tiniest bit of vegan advocacy can tell you that the notion that there is such a thing as happy meat/dairy/eggs is a major roadblock for many people who would otherwise have become vegan already. As I mentioned this was the case for me for a number of years.
            In any event, there has only been a tiny drop off in overall meat consumption in the US over the last few years. The significant drop in beef consumption has been offset by a huge increase in poultry consumption, and is almost certainly related to more people being aware of the health hazards of consuming red meat. It certainly has nothing to do with Grandin or the welfarists. (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/06/27/155527365/visualizing-a-nation-of-meat-eaters – scroll down to the bottom graph)

          • Mountain says:

            Your point was obvious, but as I pointed out, baseless. You have no evidence, just an anecdote of people saying they weren’t giving up meat because of humane standards. But there are lots of anecdotes of people beginning to think about animals because of humane standards– some becoming vegan, some vegetarian, some pescatarians, some giving up red meat, and some eating less meat. So, based on anecdotes, we know the welfare approach does both harm and good. The question is: do they do more harm than good, or more good than harm?

            The evidence we have doesn’t prove your belief, but it makes it pretty unlikely. Since welfare efforts started with cows 40 years ago, consumption has dropped significantly. Since efforts expanded to pigs and chickens more recently, consumption has dropped there, too. It’s possible that consumption would have dropped even more without welfare efforts, but it’s much more likely that welfare efforts either had no effect or caused some decrease in consumption.

            You can continue believing your claim if you wish, but it’s based on faith, not evidence. And that’s okay. You’re allowed to have faith, but I’d appreciate it you wouldn’t *sigh* at people who are more interested in evidence.

  15. Lucy (Lucy Paver) says:

    A response to Prof. Francione above.
    I already knew that Prof. F.was in favour of democratic socialism. My previous comment did not imply that Prof. F. was in favour of capitalism. Nor was it focussed on anti-capitalism but referred to anti-capitalist positions on animal rights as one of the challengers to Prof. F’s abolitionism. Prof. F., as far as I have seen, has criticised anti-capitalist positions on animal rights. He has pointed out above his justifiable doubt that just getting rid of capitalism would guarantee justice for animals, but the best antii-capitalist positions on AR always stress the need to place animal justice firmly within an anti-capitalist approach to oppression and ending the intrinsic exploitative nature of capitalism that binds both animals and people. What, I think, is clear is that anti-capitalism would give just a minor role to individual morality, would have no truck with limiting activism to vegan education and would sneer at focusing on the transformative power of vegan consumers en masse. In these ways alone anti-capitalism would gut what Prof. F. promotes. It is unreasonable to think it is not a challenger to Prof. F’s abolitionism becoming the dominant theory in the AR movement. It, ALF-type activism, DxE-type activism are all challengers.

    With apologies for digressing from the topic, I return to the criticism of McWilliams. He is criticised for being soft on welfarism. DxE is critised as a new welfarist group. Prof.F. has used links to welfarist groups on website as a criticism of ALF. It is not that Prof. F. is inaccurate to focus on welfarism and its deficiency, it is, I suggest, that the bogeyman of welfarism is used as part of the political rhetoric for dominance of the AR movement by Prof. F’s abolitionism The criticism of McWilliams is also a political attack of this sort.

  16. Ian Silver says:

    @ Mountain

    Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science? How foolish of me to think that one can actually infer things from direct observation and actually speaking with people. You are right, such anecdotes are meaningless, and belief in in such pseudo-evidence is the same as faith. For example, I’ve noticed that certain people who choose to not vaccinate their children against measles cite discredited studies showing non-existent adverse effects of the measles vaccine (or exaggerating known adverse effects). Foolishly, and with blind faith, but no hard evidence whatsoever, I believed that the prevalence of such misinformation made it more difficult for such people to come to the realization that vaccination against measles was actually a good idea. You are absolutely right, I should rely only on solid evidence such as the correlation you pointed out between “welfare efforts” and trends in meat consumption. Another good example is the correlation between importing lemons from Mexico and the number of highway fatalities in the US: (http://pubs.acs.org/appl/literatum/publisher/achs/journals/content/jcisd8/2008/jcisd8.2008.48.issue-1/ci700332k/production/images/medium/ci700332kn00001.gif). Could you please direct me to the website where you learned all about the science of evidence so that I can avoid making such silly faith-based mistakes in future?
    p.s. I really need to know because I’m still a little confused about how my claim is based on faith, but your claim that: “it’s much more likely that welfare efforts either had no effect or caused some decrease in consumption” is based on evidence.

    • Mountain says:

      The anti-vaccination argument relies on anecdotes about children who were vaccinated and then diagnosed with autism. Your anti-welfare argument relies on anecdotes, just as theirs does. All I’ve done is point this out.

    • Mountain says:

      I do like your lemons/fatalities analogy, though. Your argument– that meat consumption would have declined even faster if it weren’t for that darn Temple Grandin– is the equivalent of arguing that highway fatalities would have declined even faster if it weren’t for those darn imported lemons. I’m sure you can see how ridiculous that is with lemons, but for some reason you can’t see it with meat.

      • Ian Silver says:

        You’re right professor Mountain! I have been so edified already by your pronouncements. I’m still a little confused though (forgive me, most of us are not blessed with your prodigious intellect). I was mistakenly thinking that by telling people that there is “humanely” raised and slaughtered meat, that would make people less likely to stop eating meat, as people are essentially being told that there is a “right” way to eat meat. Therefore, I thought foolishly, people would only feel compelled to change the source of the meat they ate, and that quitting eating meat would not be morally necessary. Again, this only made sense to me because of my feeble mind. However, you assert that not only is this not true, but that the opposite is likely the case. So could you please explain (in simple terms of course – remember who you’re dealing with) how holding meat eating events (http://www.gettohoofinit.com/), endorsing beef jerky (http://www.bestbeefjerky.org/2014/07/lawless-jerky-endorsed-by-humane.html) or other meat/dairy/egg products (http://certifiedhumane.org/hsus-newsletter-demand-and-supply-help-spread-the-word-on-certified-humane-products/), or offering dollar off coupons for bacon (https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach/photos/a.393908680628892.94280.156275557725540/926596030693485/?type=1&theater) is supposed to curb demand for meat. To me this seems completely illogical, but I’m sure that with your superior reasoning skills you’ll be able to educate me even more than you already have.

        • Mountain says:

          Let’s assume the purpose of animal-welfare organizations isn’t to reduce meat consumption– let’s assume they are only intending to improve conditions for animals before they are consumed. But in the process of improving conditions, they: 1) get people to think of animals as animals, rather than just as products; and 2) raise the price of meat.

          For many people, these two things will have no effect on their behavior, but for many they will. When things are more expensive, people tend to buy less of it. There are, no doubt, some people so wealthy they are unaffected by this rule, but most of us are. So, one way welfare organizations drive down meat consumption is by making people pay. The other is by making them think.

          By caring about an animal’s living conditions, you have to think of an animal as something other than an industrial product. You don’t have to think very deeply– the way respecting an animal’s desire not to be killed requires deep consideration– but it is a first step in that direction.

          And you are an excellent example of that phenomenon. Many people will be content to think no further than living conditions. Others will think further, and realize that the conditions at farms labeled “humane” aren’t nearly as nice as they had imagined. And some, like you, will think further, and conclude that it’s wrong to kill an animal, regardless of how nice its living conditions were.

          I realize your questions were heavy with snark, but I decided to answer them seriously. I hope this helps.

          • Ian Silver says:

            “And you are an excellent example of that phenomenon. Many people will be content to think no further than living conditions. Others will think further, and realize that the conditions at farms labeled “humane” aren’t nearly as nice as they had imagined. And some, like you, will think further, and conclude that it’s wrong to kill an animal, regardless of how nice its living conditions were.”

            No Mountain, you couldn’t be more wrong. I am an excellent example of the exact opposite. I kept eating meat/dairy/eggs for far longer than I would have if I hadn’t been convinced by the welfarist notion that consuming certain types of such things was OK. It wasn’t until I encountered the abolitionist approach that it all became crystal clear to me that being vegan was the only rational approach if one truly cared about animals.

            As far as the notion that welfare organizations drive down meat consumption due to driving up meat prices, that is a spurious claim. Sure, the cost of grass-fed, “humanely raised and slaughtered” beef is higher than CAFO produced beef, but only those who can afford it buy the expensive stuff. The vast majority buy conventional meat products, whose price is affected by many things but not by welfarist initiatives. In fact, many welfarist initiatives would have been adopted by the meat industry anyway, because they are cost-effective.

            I do agree 100% with your assertion that the purpose of animal welfare organizations isn’t to reduce meat consumption. And that’s the very crux of the problem, isn’t it?

            Finally, I just wanted to say hats off on completely avoiding answering my actual question.

          • Mountain says:

            “I kept eating meat/dairy/eggs for far longer than I would have if I hadn’t been convinced by the welfarist notion that consuming certain types of such things was OK.”

            How do you know? Had you stopped eating meat/dairy/eggs before you encountered welfarists? If encountering the abolitionist approach led you to become vegan, what led you to encounter the abolitionist approach?

            I don’t know the details of your personal journey, but from my perspective, it looks like it began with welfarist steps that led you toward veganism.

          • Mountain says:

            “And that’s the very crux of the problem, isn’t it?”

            No, it’s actually completely irrelevant. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. So I’m not interested in good intentions– I’m interested in good results.

          • Mountain says:

            Finally, I wasn’t aware that you had an actual question. What is your actual question?

  17. Paul Watson says:

    You do indeed make a mountain out of a mole hill. Because a pope that died 1500 years ago connected Judas to anti-semitism you jump to the conclusion that any mention of Judas is anti-Semitic. Not sure why you’re on this pursuit of trivialities. It has nothing to do with the subject addressed. But you seem to have a soapbox so please enjoy.

    • Mountain says:

      When we began our conversation, I had no idea who you were. Now, if you are who your handle suggests you are, I realize I never should have pointed out that you were using an anti-Semitic slur. After all, why would a little anti-semitism bother you when you’ve done so much worse?

      I think you’ve done well in choosing who to hate– the meat industry is a worthy foe. But I think you’ve made a mistake in choosing a destructive life, rather than a constructive one. I believe that trying to destroy those you hate, rather than building a better world, is futile. After all, what have your efforts accomplished? Have they done anything to diminish the consumption of seafood? Anything to diminish the suffering of sea creatures? If so, I can’t find any evidence of it.

      I’m sure I’m not the first person to suggest this to you, and there’s no sign you paid attention if they did. I don’t expect my words to make any difference to you, but I tried.

  18. Paul Watson says:

    Well Mountain, so you know who I am but I have no idea of who you are but I m getting the impression of what kind of person you are. If you can’t find any evidence of what Sea Shepherd has achieved, I would suggest you have not done much homework on the subject. I don’t hate anyone. I oppose those who inflict cruelty and death and destroy eco-systems. I think you just like to troll the internet commenting on things you know little about and now that I have an idea of just what kind of person you are, I see no need to continue this discussion with you. You are free to have the last word and I assume you will, but I am done with this conversation. It is simply going around in circles without any positive results. My position is that Temple Grandin is a Judas cow and your position is that this is an anti-Semitic comment. Great, understood, I accept your position. You are free to believe whatever you wish to believe and I am now free to ignore you.

    • Mountain says:

      Perhaps I should have been more precise with my question. I can see that Sea Shepherd has achieved a great deal of destruction, and received a great deal of media attention. My question is what you have accomplished for the animals you claim to protect.

      Whale populations have been rebounding since before you started Sea Shepherd. Is there any reason to think that rebound as accelerated since your work began? I can see the rebound has continued, but the improvement seems to have slowed in recent decades.

      Have the populations of other sea creatures improved in recent decades? Are the oceans less over-fished than they were when you began your work? I don’t follow the issue closely, but whenever Pew or some other reputable NGO releases a study, the news never seems to be good.

      • Ingrid T says:

        Mountain, I’ve been following this blog for quite some time and your initial views — including some back-and-forth you and I engaged on your paleo diet and so forth — did not reveal what now seems to be outright antipathy for these advocacy positions. To suggest that the gross, profit-driven, mechanized destruction of our oceans is somehow the failing of Sea Shepherd (or any other ocean protection group) is logically fallacious, a huge stretch at best — topped with an hominem attack on Paul Watson. How on earth does this strengthen the credibility of your arguments in this thread? And what accomplishments do you personally claim in the realm of environmentalism and animal advocacy that lead you to these perspectives?

        • Mountain says:

          Ingrid, I didn’t say anything about Sea Shepherd’s advocacy– I took issue with their actions. We know their actions have been destructive– ships destroyed, fossil fuels burned, diesel spilled into the ocean. My question was whether these actions had accomplished anything worthwhile to justify the destruction. Maybe they have, but I haven’t found any evidence that they have, and neither Paul nor anyone else have presented any evidence that they have.

          I’m not blaming Sea Shepherd for the state of our oceans today– that’s the fault of the seafood industry (and lots of other industries) and its consumers. I’m asking how effective Sea Shepherd has been at stopping or preventing damage. And so far, the answer appears to be: not at all.

  19. Ian Silver says:

    @ Mountain:

    “I don’t know the details of your personal journey, but from my perspective, it looks like it began with welfarist steps that led you toward veganism.”

    From my perspective, it looks like you’re going to believe what you want to believe, irrespective of the facts.

    “Finally, I wasn’t aware that you had an actual question. What is your actual question?”

    Copied and pasted from my post:

    “So could you please explain (in simple terms of course – remember who you’re dealing with) how holding meat eating events (http://www.gettohoofinit.com/), endorsing beef jerky (http://www.bestbeefjerky.org/2014/07/lawless-jerky-endorsed-by-humane.html) or other meat/dairy/egg products (http://certifiedhumane.org/hsus-newsletter-demand-and-supply-help-spread-the-word-on-certified-humane-products/), or offering dollar off coupons for bacon (https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach/photos/a.393908680628892.94280.156275557725540/926596030693485/?type=1&theater) is supposed to curb demand for meat.”

    Or, if you prefer in a more simply worded manner: How does the promotion of meat eating lead to less meat eating?

    You can go ahead and reply, but as Paul Watson pointed out, continuing this discussion seems to be an exercise in futility.

  20. Ian Silver says:

    @ Mountain:

    “I don’t know the details of your personal journey, but from my perspective, it looks like it began with welfarist steps that led you toward veganism.”

    From my perspective, it looks like you’re going to believe what you want to believe, irrespective of the facts.

    “Finally, I wasn’t aware that you had an actual question. What is your actual question?”

    Copied and pasted from my post:

    “So could you please explain … how holding meat eating events (citation), endorsing beef jerky (citation) or other meat/dairy/egg products (citation), or offering dollar off coupons for bacon (citation) is supposed to curb demand for meat.”

    Or, if you prefer in a more simply worded manner: How does the promotion of meat eating lead to less meat eating?

    You can go ahead and reply, but as Paul Watson pointed out, continuing this discussion seems to be an exercise in futility.

  21. Ian Silver says:

    @ Mountain:

    “I don’t know the details of your personal journey, but from my perspective, it looks like it began with welfarist steps that led you toward veganism.”

    From my perspective, it looks like you’re going to believe what you want to believe, irrespective of the facts.

    “Finally, I wasn’t aware that you had an actual question. What is your actual question?”

    Reread my post from Feb 11th at 9:53pm (EST), starting at “So could you please explain.”

    Or, if you prefer in a more simply worded manner: How does the promotion of meat eating lead to less meat eating?

    You can go ahead and reply, but as Paul Watson pointed out, continuing this discussion seems to be an exercise in futility.

    • Mountain says:

      If that was your question, I already answered it. For one, they suggest to people that animals are more than just meat, that we should care about their welfare. For another, it raises the price of eating meat. Even the coupon for the “humane” bacon. Even with the coupon, the “humane” bacon was about $2/pound more than regular bacon.

      You don’t have to accept my answers, but I answered your actual question. Paying more for meat causes people to buy less of it. Thinking of animals as beings rather than as commodities leads people toward killing fewer animals.

  22. Ian Silver says:

    Sorry about the multiple posts – I was getting a weird error message. I tried cutting down the post several times, but kept getting the same message. Finally, all the posts went through at once, and I can’t seem to be able to delete the extras.

  23. Barb Lomow says:

    Temple Grandin quote from the excellent recent Michael Mountain piece, “Killing Them Softly”:

    [ Animal welfarist Temple Grandin, who designs "humane" ways of leading the animals to their execution, was quoted as saying that her methods of slaughter improve the quality of the meat.

    "If cattle get all excited the last five minutes before slaughter," she said, "they’re more likely to have tough meat." ]

    http://www.earthintransition.org/2015/02/killing-them-softly/

  24. AA says:

    It should be remembered that in 1990 no one thought about how animals on farms were treated. It was off the media radar. Now, thanks to all those Peta and HSUS campaigns, it is constantly talked about. One might consider that Francione’s advice in Animals Agenda 1992 was to not do any welfare campaigns. Fortunately no one listened to him. Grandin may well be an effort by industry to sugar coat reality–that 99% of meat and dairy comes from Factory Farms, but they put effort into killing them in a less sadistic fashion–changing the conversation if you will, but what about all those Fifth Column Vegans we find in the media? Gary Francione being number one. Take a look at this article http://www.cattlenetwork.com/news/meat-matter-great-debate where the writer (not vegan I might add) praises Francione for sowing discord. Francione is not an animal advocate. he pretends to be in order to attack animal activism-especially the ones that the industry are worried about like Peta and HSUS. look what Richard Berman says about it: http://www.thepigsite.com/articles/4220/full-court-press-on-the-activist-agenda

    I dont expect James McWilliams to wrote an article questioning Francione’s sincerity but others are welcome to examine the evidence. https://supremacymyth.wordpress.com/2014/07/09/fifth-column-veganism-nathan-winograd-gary-francione-and-the-philosophy-of-distract-divide-and-demoralize-2/

    https://supremacymyth.wordpress.com/2015/01/19/how-the-enemies-of-animals-use-fifth-column-veganism-to-attack-animal-advocacy/

    Cheers!

    • markgil says:

      hsus fully supports the consumption of flesh, dairy and eggs and is in no way a vegan or animal rights organization. the big welfare charities like hsus, peta, farm sanctuary & mfa all speak out of both sides of their mouths in order to garner donations from both sides. if anyone is using the “distract and divide” method, it is hsus and their partners in the animal ag businesses, all of whom make tremendous profits off the suffering, exploitation and murder of non-human animals.

      http://www.humanemyth.org/happymeatopia.htm

      while i do not agree with many things about Francione, his criticism of the welfare groups is spot on.

Leave a Reply