Abolition and Farm Animals

Clementine

Clementine

At Farm Sanctuary, we’re able to spend time with chickens, pigs, turkeys, and cows who had been bred for meat, eggs, or milk. Every day, our interactions with them show us, again and again, that each of these animals is an individual, with intelligence and a unique personality. They form relationships with one another, and many of us have developed friendships with our residents.

DianaPais_SFarm animals are no different from the dogs or cats with whom many of us live. Each and every one of them yearns to love and live free, if only given the chance. Our advocacy for them takes many forms, but at the very core, our message is simple: turkeys, goats, pigs, chickens, cows, sheep, and ducks are friends, not food.

bondingsmThirty years ago, almost no one in the country thought about – let alone cared about – farm animals or how meat arrived on their plate. Now, we regularly see exposé on the brutality of factory farms, and at least half the country is open to the idea of changing their diet.

But at this time, it is a huge step from the norm – eating animals without a second thought – to fully embracing and acting on the view of “friends, not food.” And despite our movement’s many successes over the past three decades at promoting farm animals’ interests, we haven’t been very successful at increasing the number of people who don’t eat animals (in part because >80% of people who stop eating animals revert back). And even if we were to double the number of people who fully live according to “friends, not food,” the change would be hardly noticeable.

This is all the more surprising, given that Gallup consistently finds that more than 95% of Americans oppose cruelty to animals, and over half are specifically concerned about the treatment of farm animals. Fully a third think animals deserve the same rights as people!

Thus most people oppose cruelty to farm animals, but currently find it too difficult to completely change their diet and maintain that change. Combine these facts with our bottom-line concern for the suffering of every farm animal, and we can leverage people’s concern to abolish the worst abuses on factory farms (e.g., gestation crates, battery cages, veal crates, slaughter without stunning, and genetically-manipulated rapid growth).

Of course, this doesn’t mean we should end (or even lessen) our efforts to have more people recognize that farm animals are friends, not food. But working to abolish the worst barbarism farm animals suffer is actually complementary to efforts to help people live a fully compassionate life. For one, getting people to think about cruelty to farm animals and take an action (e.g., sign a petition, contact their representative) is a relatively easy step away from the status quo. Getting people to take the first step makes the next step easier and more likely. Research shows that asking for a small step is more likely to create change, and have that change be sustained.

Second, abolishing the worst aspects of factory farming makes meat, eggs, and dairy more expensive. Anything we can do to bend the supply/demand curve in this direction will lead to fewer animals suffering on factory farms.

Finally, if we truly care about every chicken, pig, cow, and turkey, we have to do our best for them, right now, with the world as it actually is. No matter what we do, there will be animals on factory farms tomorrow. And next year. And the next year. We are morally obligated to support any step that could reduce their suffering.

This is not to say we shouldn’t spend our limited personal or organizational time and resources promoting universal compassion. But abolishing the worst abuses in no way endorses or excuses raising and killing animals in a “less cruel” fashion.

Rather, we support the abolition of the worst forms of torture because we care about every single farm animal. Of course we won’t stop until everyone internalizes and acts upon the simple fact that these individuals are friends, not food. But instead of only talking about how we want the world to be in the future, we will look at how the world is for farm animals right now, and do our absolute best for them.

-Matt 

Check Out the Power of Online Outreach!

Many of our online advertising campaigns lead people to watch our powerful “What Came Before video, which introduces viewers to three Farm Sanctuary residents: Nikki pig, Symphony chicken, and Fanny cow, making the case against factory farming and for a compassionate diet. Our cost per click depends on the target audience and length the campaign runs, but generally varies between 8-10¢ per person clicking through to the video page.

As noted previously, getting millions of people to see the content of our Facebook ads can be as important as having people click through. This is why we make each ad as powerful as possible, and continue to refine our outreach efforts, varying them in terms of the text, picture, and target audience.

Below, you can see one week’s comments on just one of the ads in one of Farm Sanctuary’s current campaigns. Note also that, in addition to nearly 100 likes and other reactions every single day, hundreds of people are enraged and engaged enough to share the ad with their friends, giving a personal endorsement to our message of helping farm animals. This makes our outreach even more cost effective!
>Watch Now & please share with your friends, family, coworkers, and social networks.

unnamed

62a5a8cf-3ea1-4442-ab25-174388f56e39

09ce5887-330d-414b-9f5e-260fd7c3c7c7

f19a563e-0fdf-4a08-8b5e-79525813362c

The 12 Habits of Highly Effective Vegans

Another guest post from our good friend Tobias!

  1. Highly effective vegans can put themselves in the shoes of whomever they are talking to. They know that other people may be significantly different in many ways. They may have different interests and motivations, different ways to deal with changes and challenges. Therefore…
  2. Highly effective vegans are adaptive. They can adapt the way they talk and what they talk about, according to their audience. They are not dogmatic in their approach. They know they are under no moral obligation to present veganism as a moral obligation.
  3. Highly effective vegans encourage every step that people take. They know that change usually happens gradually. Therefore, highly effective vegans focus on the good things that people are already doing, rather than on the things they are not doing yet.
  4. Highly effective vegans don’t care about purity. They know that both regarding themselves and others, focussing on purity is unproductive. They want to make being vegan look as accessible, easy and attractive as possible. They know that eating more compassionately is not an either or, black or white, now or never thing. They want to help people to take the first step rather than the last.
  5. Highly effective vegans don’t need to be “right”. Rather, they focus on what works. That’s why they are rarely debating or arguing things. They know that in addition to providing arguments, they can also provide practical information, recipes, or a taste experience (i.e., they can cook for others).
  6. Highly effective vegans know how to listen. They know that listening is essential to real communication. Highly effective vegans therefore also know to ask questions, and when to be quiet. They are friendly, and have a sense of humor. They know that the process of their conversations is often more important than the content.
  7. Highly effective vegans do remember what it was like to be a non vegan – they don’t suffer from vegan amnesia. They know that at some point they ate animal products and may even have been deaf themselves for the animal rights arguments, even when they were articulated clearly to them. Therefore, they are patient and understanding.
  8. Highly effective vegans know that attitude change can come after behavior change. Therefore, they don’t mind when people start their vegan journey for health or for any reason.
  9. Highly effective vegans are humble. They know they are not perfect. They know other people may do other great things, even if they are not vegan. And they know they don’t have all the answers.
  10. Highly effective vegans have faith in people. They know most people want to do good, and don’t want animals to suffer. Highly effective vegans know that change is a matter of time. They realize that one important thing we have to do is to make it easier for people to act and eat compassionately, by providing more and better vegan options.
  11. Highly effective vegans understand the crucial importance of good food. They applaud the development of new products, they learn how to cook, and they can inspire other people by telling them about how great they can eat as vegans.
  12. Highly effective vegans don’t judge. They see veganism – like getting better at being human – as a journey rather than a destination, something that is never done, and can be started on many different roads.

Direct link.

The Reality of “Vegetarian”

From a study of people who self-identify as “vegetarian,” as noted by our friends at Faunalytics:

In their study, the researchers found that only 3% of respondents [all of whom self-identify as “vegetarian”] reported consuming no animal protein whatsoever, which is in the range of many current estimates of the number of veg*ns in the U.S. Not surprisingly, the majority of self-identified vegetarians reported consuming dairy (93%) and/or eggs (65%). What might be surprising is that the study also found that more than a quarter of respondents (27%) reported “consumption of some type of red meat.” When they grouped together “meat, poultry, and seafood” they found that “almost half (48%) of self-identified vegetarians reported consumption of some food from this combined grouping.” The fact that about half of self-identified vegetarians are not actually vegetarian is important for advocates to keep in mind as we weigh the value of different surveys and try to identify trends.

It ain’t meat, babe: meat alternatives luring investors

From the meat industry journal, Meatingplace:

As research firms churned out New Year’s forecasts this year, one theme became apparent: Plant protein is in. Forget the war between vegetarians and meat eaters; today’s battle is for the omnivore’s plate and, increasingly, those who eat meat are looking to diversify their protein sources.

Plant-based meat alternatives (e.g. veggie burgers and meatless chicken strips) have been around for a long time, most of which started as boutique businesses that catered to vegetarians. Increasingly, however, mainstream large packaged food companies including Kellogg, Kraft, Pinnacle Foods and General Mills have bought into the market or developed their own brands and investors like Bill Gates have thrown big money at start-ups seeking to better mimic meat’s taste and mouth feel.

These products are not there yet: meat still tastes better. Even those promoting them admit that.

Still, all this money isn’t just going after the 5 percent of the population that identify as vegetarians. The Protein and the Plate research project, conducted last year by NPD Group, Midan Marketing and Meatingplace and sponsored by Yerecis Label, showed 70 percent of meat eaters substituting a non-meat protein in a meal at least once a week and 22 percent saying they are doing it more often than a year ago.

It will be up to meat processors to determine whether they can address with their own products the reasons consumers are looking for alternatives or choose to enter the market for these products themselves. Either way, it’s time to understand more about these protein players.

DeliciousEats_BigBenLentilBurger_SarahKramer-copy

On Vegans and Vegan Meals

More from our friend Tobias!

In the post “Don’t you dare call yourself a vegan“, I wrote that some day “I might get so disappointed with vegans and veganism, that I (a vegan for the animals), would refrain from using it altogether.” That was in a reaction to an article in which the author suggested “health” vegans don’t call themselves vegan. In the meantime, the Bearded Vegan podcast had an episode on the question if we should stop using the word vegan.

Now, I still think the word vegan is useful, particularly in the sense that it is a name for a concept. When you’re in restaurant, or anywhere food is served to you, it is easy if you can just explain with one word what you want. The more people who know and understand the word, the easier it gets.

The word is less useful, more controversial, and more prone to cause discussions, disagreements and even nastiness, is when it is applied to people. It is much harder for a person to be vegan than for a product or a dish to be vegan. When a product doesn’t have unvegan ingredients, it is vegan. You might say: when a person doesn’t eat unvegan ingredients, they are vegan. But it’s not that simple (no, really). There’s apparently discussion about intentions, which have to be right too (otherwise you’re plant based, according to said article); there’s the matter of the tiny bits and micro-ingredients, there’s even ideological and political issues, etc.

So here’s a subtle yet important note about grammar and how it relates to what I think is the most efficient use of the word vegan. I believe that in the case of the V-word, the nouns (“veganism”, “vegans”) are more problematic than the adjective (as in “a vegan meal”). The words “a vegan/vegans” and “veganism” are black and white or binary terms: you are it, or you’re not (even though there can be discussions about how pure you need to be to carry the label). You may have no interest in going vegan all the way, so the noun may not appeal to you. Also, if you are a vegetarian, or a part time vegan or whatever, you may feel excluded by the noun vegan. You don’t belong to that group, and “veganism” doesn’t apply to you. The nouns are very “exclusive”, they exclude you (if you’re not vegan).

This is completely different from the use of vegan as an adjective in the words “vegan meals” or “vegan products.” If you suggest a that a person have a vegan meal or buy a vegan product, you are not asking them to “become a vegan.” Everybody can eat a vegan meal or buy a vegan product. You don’t need to be a vegan for that. It works much more inclusively, it includes non-vegans. Asking people to become a vegan is asking them, or is asking for what sounds like, a change of identity.

Bottom line, in our communication, let’s invite people to eat vegan, have vegan meals, try vegan products, rather than to become a vegan or adhere to veganism.

Kristina Reports In from Santa Cruz

“I wanted to thank you again for the advocacy booklets you sent.  I handed some out today along with Vegan Rice Crispy Treat Square samples.  I spoke with many people about vegan food options and told them about Farm Sanctuary’s shelters and about some of the lasting bonds our animals have developed over the years.  It was a wonderful opportunity to speak for our dear animals, raise awareness and expand compassion.  I met Keith of ‘Food Not Bombs’ and he invited me to bring vegan food dishes to hand out on Sundays in downtown Santa Cruz.  He said I was also welcome to hand out Farm Sanctuary animal advocacy literature at these community events as well.  So that might be a good option, as well as leafleting at University of California, Santa Cruz and Cabrillo Community College.  I’m grateful I had a positive experience, I was a little nervous when I was setting up but once I began talking with people all my nerves quickly dissipated into love and an open heart.  Thanks for all your support. ”

unnamed

Yes, we CAN ask for less than “go vegan”

Another guest post from Tobias Leenaert.

An often heard crede – especially among so called “abolitionist” vegans – is that “veganism is the moral baseline”. It seems to mean that being vegan is the minimum we can do for the animals if we want to be moral creatures. Conversely, anything less than vegan is immoral behaviour. I don’t agree with that, and the way many activists use the sentence often seems quite ineffective and often condescending to me.

From idea that veganism is the moral baseline, it seems to follow (at least for those who adhere to the moral baseline motto) that our outreach towards omnivores can never be anything less than suggesting them to go vegan. Asking people to be reducetarians, for instance, would be an immoral demand, just like, believers hold, asking or demanding that a childbeater become a parttime childbeater rather than doing it every day (I have written about that before, here and here).

Let us assume for a minute that asking anything less than veganism is immoral (and that veganism is the moral baseline). Let us, however, at the same time assume – for the sake of the argument – that asking “things less than veganism” leads to a higher reduction of animal suffering and killing.What, in that case, should we prioritize: the morality of our outreach, or its impact? In other words, should we – again assuming for a minute that we know for sure – use a less effective message because we believe it to be a more moral one?

driving force

Those who would answer that the morality aspect is the most important, will often claim that the impact is actually on their side too, and that what is painted above is some kind of false dichotomy. I want to briefly examine here if that is true. In other words: is it possible that asking other things than “go vegan” is more effective in reducing animal suffering and killing?

People who follow this blog will know that my answer will be that that is definitely possible. I give three reasons why I think a smaller ask may (often) be more effective than the bigger, go vegan ask. I am not implying that everyone should do “reducitarian” outreach – more about that below.

One: bigger total impact
It seems to be common sense that when we ask people to do something easy, more of them will do it than when we ask them to do something hard. The difference between the small number of people doing the hard thing, and the higher number of people doing the easy thing is big enough, the people doing the easy thing may all together have a higher total impact. Say we ask one thousand people to go vegan and say we get ten of them to actually do so (it definitely is possible to go vegan overnight, no one is denying that). On the other hand, say that we ask another thousand people (our control group) to participate in Meatless Mondays, and say that 300 do so. You can do the math. One might object that the few people that were convinced become fulltime vegans might also become active in reaching out to others, but actually the same can be said about the meat reducers, who can also advocate for Meatless Monday.

Two: meat reducers may more easily become vegan
I believe our main challenge today is to get as many people as possible totake the first steps, to cross a certain treshold.That is in many cases one of the most important things we can help them do, because it is a lot easier to move up the vegan scale when you have made a first step. Being a reducetarian is not an end, but a beginning.

Three: meat reducers make veganism easier and may tip the system faster
Meat reducers are the driving force behind demand, and companies producing vegan products, do so in the first place for *them* and not for vegans. In other words, meat reducers help to make it easier for everyone to eat more and more vegan, or even to go vegan overnight.

These are three reasons – and in my upcoming book they will be better referenced – that could indicate that asking people to reduce might have a bigger impact than asking them to go vegan. One could argue that if this would be so, this demand would actually be the more moral one. After all,what’s moral about using a message that is less effective than one we know to be more effective?

Let me explicitly state my purpose in writing all this. I am not saying that our movement should never use the “go vegan” message. I *am* saying, conversely, that we are under no moral obligation to *always* use the “go vegan” message. And I am suggesting that those who think they should criticize people who do “less than vegan” outreach (be they vegans themselves or not) stop doing that.