Meat.

This blog will probably offend a few people, and for that I'm sorry.

Yesterday I wrote a blog about being more environmentally friendly and eating less meat in order to limit the strain that animal farming puts on our land and water resources. I never realized meat was such a touchy subject: within a day I had a slew of comments. I love getting comments, all comments, even if they're controversial. The only thing I can say really, is that I would ask people not to take what I have written, and twist it to fit their political agenda.

This website, http://meat.org (please don't visit it unless you're really curious, if you've ever watched PETA videos it's basically the same brutality and sensationalism* except with John Travolta CORRECTION ALEC BALDWIN, SORRY JOHN as the narrator) was suggested to me in following with my blog about eating less meat. Though I am somewhat resentful that this kind of propaganda* has been put forward and basically politicizing and shifting the agenda from my eat-less-meat-to-be-greener to don't-eat-meat-because-they-torture-baby-cows, I've got to thank you for writing this comment, because it has opened up a passionate subject of debate that I think interests a lot of people.

*I use the word sensationalism and propaganda very tentatively here, so please don't just close this screen if you're a PETA or meat.org advocate. I will explain why, though they fight for a very good cause (the rights of farm animals and decency as well as the implementation of merciful and painless slaughter) I think their videos are sensationalist.

I don't care what side you support, all I ask is that if you do comment on this blog, that you remain respectful to other people and their arguments (and call me out on it if I'm not being fair or respectful!).

Hear me out:
I resent those PETA videos on farming. Not because I don't agree with their cause, I totally do. Except I make a difference my way: I eat eggs from free range chickens, when I can I buy chicken breasts from farms where the chickens are also free range. I have made an effort to eat as little veal and lamb as possible. I don't cut out meat, but I'm not a mindless-meat-consuming machine.
But here's what really pisses me off: while much of what they document rings of truth, there is a whole lot of bullshit in their videos. They don't give you any numbers, like, how many farms they visited where farmers were abusing their livestock - or showing farms that treated their animals well, read: standards that should be applied. They throw out things like, farmers are sadistic bastards who painfully de-beak their chickens because they've driven the chickens crazy and its the only way to keep them from killing each other. I had the misfortune of spewing this one day at a friend's house (oh yes, I was a PETA girl once), and her dad turned to me and shut me down. I had forgotten he had been a farmer once. He told me that everyone has to de-beak the chickens because they are aggressive by nature and will actually kill one another. Of course he admitted that some farmers might abuse their animals, just like some people abuse their pets, but many farmers love (is love too strong a word? Even I don't think you could bear killing an animal you love) their animals, or maybe, care about them anyway.
It was then that the seed of doubt was implanted in my mind. If PETA was sensationalizing de-beaking, what else were they telling us that wasn't necessarily true?

Just in case you don't buy the whole farmers-HAVE-to-de-beak-their-chickens bit (I had my doubts too, so I found an article from a scientific magazine) here's some info:

"The practice of beak trimming in the poultry industry occurs to prevent excessive body pecking, cannibalism, and to avoid feed wastage. To assess the welfare implications of the procedure, an emphasis of this paper has been placed on the anatomical structures that comprise the beak and mouth parts and a representation of the structures removed following beak trimming. Five animal welfare concerns regarding the procedure have been addressed, including the following: loss of normal beak function, short-term pain and temporary debilitation, tongue and nostril damage, neuromas and scar tissue, and long-term and phantom limb pain. Because all of the concerns involve the nervous system, the current knowledge of the avian somatosensory system was summarized. The critical components include touch, pain, and thermal receptors in the buccal cavity and bill, the trigeminal system, and neural projections mapped to the pallium (cortical-like tissue in the avian forebrain). At the present time, a need remains to continue the practice of beak trimming in the poultry industry to prevent head, feather, and vent pecking in some lines of birds. The procedure, however, should involve conservative trimming and be limited to young birds. Importantly, data show that removing 50% or less of the beak of chicks can prevent the formation of neuromas and allow regeneration of keratinized tissue to prevent deformed beaks and therefore positively affect the quality of life of birds during their lifetime."
(Kuenzel, W.J. "Neurobiological Basis of Sensory Perception: Welfare Implications of Beak Trimming", Poultry Science Association, 2007 http://ps.fass.org/cgi/content/full/86/6/1273 Accessed Jan.20, 2009)

There are negative effects to beak trimming, all I'm saying is that its not some kind of needless abusive procedure. The scientist acknowledges that though there are health implications, it is necessary until a better solution can be found. This is a far cry from the horrific and needless procedure that PETA makes it out to be (in my opinion).

I don't like being fed propaganda, no matter what the source is. I acknowledge that the slaughtering standards should be improved (they should make all slaughter houses kosher, in my opinion), but that doesn't mean you should use scare tactics. Plus, because PETA videos advocate vegetarianism and the complete elimination of meat consumption, that ostrasizes a large population that want to still eat meat but don't want the animals to suffer for it. If someone came out with a video that gave credible facts, gave an unbiased (or at least radically less biased) account of what is going on in the livestock industry, I think a lot more changes would be implemented (and faster) than a few people being put off meat because they watched that whole video (I'm glad today was a no meat day for project New Years Eco, gross).
ANNND if this hypothetical video of livestock rights added a little segment on how livestock farming strains the environment, and encourages reduced meat consumption, everything would be just peachy as far as I'm concerned.
Sometimes I just don't know what to think though, you know? There are articles that praise animal rights groups like PETA, and there are many that condemn them. We just have to find a medium between both extremes I guess.