industrial agriculture

...now browsing by tag

 
 

Dairy, a lot of words, and the absence of meaning

Tuesday, August 25th, 2009

The recent Time article about industrial agriculture has some large-scale “farmers” up in arms about some of the claims. I came across this response today, and was surprised at how little information it really contains. There really aren’t any actual facts in it at all, except that the author considers himself a farmer and that he has a cell-phone. It would have been interesting to see a response that dealt with the claims made in the Time article with some evidence to back it all up.

Free from the cycle of exploitation

Free from the cycle of exploitation

I would invite you to check out the original Time article and then read through this post. For now, I’ll just take issue with a few points.

Modern technology enhances individual animal care; for example, I can access whole-health history for each cow from my cell phone. Modern freestall housing keeps our animals comfortable and healthy – protecting them from weather extremes, predators and disease. Also, a veterinarian frequently checks on our herd.

Suggesting that keeping cows indoors for their entire lives, never letting them experience any sort of natural life, is “animal care” is a bit like saying that prisons are a paradigm of individual human health care.

Being able to access health records also is really no indicator of concern for welfare. It only makes sense to maintain accurate and up-to-date records for any piece of equipment, and to dairy farmers cows are really just milk-producing machines, not living beings with any life or meaning of their own.

As a keeper of many animals throughout the years, I’ve had mixed experiences with veterinarians. The American Veterinary Medical Association hasn’t really shown themselves to be concerned with animals in and of themselves, but rather in assisting people who use animals to maximize their profits.

The AVMA has historically been reluctant to adopt a position that conflicts with current practice. Some notable controversial practices that the AVMA has not come out in opposition to are forced molting and gestation crates. They have also approved of such practices as tail docking and ear notching of pigs, and they also approve of battery cages for egg-laying chickens [pdf]. They have consistently positioned themselves on the side of industry, rather than on the side of animals. More information about the AVMA’s positions on animal welfare issues can be found on their website, avma.org.

I’m also struck by the absence of photos or video to back up these claims. What this really indicates to me is an effort to spin words to present a happy picture of content cows happily giving their milk – all the while hiding the calves taken from them right after birth, their milk taken from them by machines, sent off to slaughter when their milk production drops off and they are no longer profitable. Let’s look at the whole picture and let’s really ask the farmers who are producing our food to open up and show us the truth. Let’s stop accepting this sort of hazy misinformation as any sort of answer.

The truth – that’s all we ask.

Important but Flawed: A Review of Food, Inc.

Monday, July 13th, 2009

Food, Inc. is not a vegan movie. Far from it. It does many things wrong but does a lot right.

First, what does it do right?

Food, Inc. is the most mainstream movie we’ve had dealing with issues of industrial agriculture and food. While there are many films dealing with these subjects, Food, Inc. actually has the potential to be seen by millions of people.

For the footage of “conventional” chicken sheds alone, this movie is to be appreciated. The one farmer who was willing to show her chicken houses to the filmmakers lost her contract with one of the large chicken processors. There is footage of her chickens, grown so big so quickly that they can barely walk. They can take two or three steps and then collapse to the floor, which is strewn with dirty sawdust, feather, chicken feces, and dead chickens. Gathering up the dead chickens, the farmer piles them to dispose of the bodies. She has to do this every day because many of the chickens’ bodies can’t handle the massive growth.

Chickens in a massive chicken shed

Chickens in a massive chicken shed

One shot still haunts me: a chicken, collapsed on his back, bleeding, breathing in heaving gasps. He is about to die because his body has turned on him. His chest muscles are crushing his internal organs.

The result of chicken breeding

The result of chicken breeding

Pig farms in the south that have been flooded, their manure lagoons flowing into the river and on into the ocean. Downer cattle being pushed into slaughterhouses with forklifts. Feedlots that extend as far as the horizon, cattle standing ankle deep in their own shit. A cow fitted with a valve so that we can see into her stomach. Even the shots of the “nice” slaughter of chickens elicited gasps from the audience as they bled out.

Feedlot beef

Feedlot beef

There is a real message in the film that animals should not be treated as machines or production units, but are, in the words of Joel Salatin, “critters”. They have wants and needs and thwarting those is not healthy for them or for us.

So, what wasn’t good?

The film posits a humane sort of animal farming as a solution to these problems. Using Polyface farms (familiar to those of you who have read Michael Pollan’s Omnivore’s Dilema) as the paragon of good farming, the filmmakers make a case that animals can be farmed in a healthy fashion that is good for us and for them. But, they leave out many facts about even this farm. While they are able to slaughter chickens on the farm (a process which is also not pretty and certainly not “nice” for the chickens who get inverted and their necks cut open), they do not slaughter the pigs, cattle, or rabbits on the farm. They have to go to a slaughterhouse just like any other farm. The animals are still transported and killed just the same way as their cousins on industrial farms. There is no such thing as “humane” slaughter.

Really respecting the wants and needs of the animals would preclude killing them for our desires.

They also don’t mention that the chickens grow to slaughter size in about the same amount of time as the chickens on industrial farms. These are the same kinds of chickens – and they don’t show the chickens who are kept indoors with the rabbits. You can read more about that in Omnivore’s Dilema.

But, what is most troubling about the film is the lack of real solution to the problem. They do not suggest any reduction of consumption. The final message is to go out and shop (as long as it’s organic). It’s almost as if the film were made by Whole Foods. In fact, it really felt like an ad for Stonyfield Farms. I suppose some of this endorsement of massive consumption is needed to appeal to the audience the film is trying to reach. I’d accept that, but it still felt like too much of an endorsement.

I’m not the only one who has a similar criticism of Food, Inc.

The film’s website suggests eating vegetarian one day per week, but this idea is not mentioned even once in the film itself. And there is no information about how much land and resources are used by organic animal farming in the film.

While the film has these deep and troubling flaws, leaving out vital information that could help us make important decisions about our consumption habits, it can (and likely will) prompt many people to begin seeking out more information about these issues. For this reason the film is important.

So, go and see it. But take along a stack of Even If You Like Meat and give them out to people as they leave. Fill the gaps left by the film.