Read my latest flash, Venison, at 52|250.

In a New York Times op-ed, James E. McWilliams, a history professor at Texas State University at San Marcos, notes that a 2008 study found that free-range pork is more likely than the factory-farm abused variety to carry pathogens:

as yet another reminder that culinary wisdom is never conventional, scientists have found that free-range pork can be more likely than caged pork to carry dangerous bacteria and parasites. It’s not only pistachios and 50-pound tubs of peanut paste that have been infected with salmonella but also 500-pound pigs allowed to root and to roam pastures happily before butting heads with a bolt gun.

The parasites include trichina which had been assumed to be a thing of the past.

McWilliams goes on to argue that free-range is defined as “an arbitrary point between the wild and the domesticated”. (Indeed, I would add that unless you have actually visited the farm in question you can’t be quite certain what that point is.) He concludes

if we genuinely hope to produce pork that’s safe and tasty — instead of setting the animal world partly free, we might have to take greater control of it. Do not underestimate the importance of this challenge. After all, if clean and humane methods of production cannot be developed, there’s only one ethical choice left for the conscientious consumer: a pork-free diet.

Certainly, I agree that a pork-free diet is the only ethical choice, but I question that final conditional. No method of raising a living creature for slaughter can ultimately be compassionate and benevolent. To reduce the term “humane” to mean causing an (arbitrarily defined) low level of suffering in a being that is exploited for our consumption, our enjoyment rather than our survival, reduces too the value of the etymological root of the word. That is, it sets a low standard for the ideal of being human.

Perhaps it is a more realistic ideal, given our wars, given that teenagers can brutally and randomly kill a musician who brought joy to passersby. If we want to change all that, however, it can only help to aim high.

If there is anyone out there who still believes that non-human animal cannot be sentient, take a look a this story in the Washington Post about a chimpanzee who stores up stones to throw at visitors. He gathers rocks and chunks of concrete before the exhibit in which he is kept opens so that he can use them when the crowds make him feel agitated. Mathias Osvath, author of a paper in the journal Current Biology notes, “this is planning for a future psychological state.”

As much as any external action can, then, this suggests that not only does this chimp (who other researchers state is not particularly exceptional) not only experiences emotional states but also remembers and anticipates them. This is awareness of one’s own existence, even if it isn’t communicated in language humans can easily understand. 

Related articles by Zemanta

• Chimp created weapons to hurl at zoo vistors (scienceblog.com)
• Chimp in Swedish zoo ‘planned’ stone attacks on visitors (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Chimp ‘showed malice aforethought’ (guardian.co.uk)

Add me to the list of vegans officially disgusted with PETA. In the past, I’ve defended some of the ads and stunts involving naked women; while I still don’t believe I was incorrect in those defenses, I can no longer support in any way an organization that believes it is appropriate to have a bunch of white kids dress up like klansmen for a protest.

The argument PETA has used to justify this action is to compare the actions of the American Kennel Club in selective breeding to eugenics. Had they merely written out this argument, we could have a reasonable discussion about it. Yes, there is something similar going on with the obsession with bloodlines: our cultural love of the pure is a problem for humans and animals alike. On the other hand, the AKC (so far as I know) isn’t actively seeking to prevent the existence of mutts, nor are they burning crosses on the lawns of homes where mixed-blood dogs reside.

PETA, however, didn’t just write out their argument; they chose to go with a display of racist imagery. As Renee at Womanist Musings puts it: “I000000;">t mattered not to these ignorant over privileged fools, that seeing people dressed like this in a public place could be terribly triggering to POC.” There are two ways to go about portraying animals and people as having moral equality: one is to raise the value of animals, the other is to reduce the values of humans. It should go without saying that I favor the first technique. When PETA ignores the possibility of triggering people, it is engaging in the second. And since PETA brought up eugenics, I would be remiss if I failed to mention that it was in this direction that the Nazis went as well.

000000;">I should also point out that there’s something absurd about PETA justifying racist displays by claiming that they are in opposition to eugenics given that PETA has had absolutely no problem perpetuating negative ideas about autism in the past:

Remember, people with disabilities are among the main targets of eugenic campaigns.

000000;">ETA: Evil Slutopia also has a post about PETA’s action.

A number of school districts and a pair of fast food chains are refusing to buy beef from a slaughterhouse where a video revealed that workers tortured sick and injured cows. On the surface, it seems praiseworthy enough; places where animals experience unnecessary pain should be shut down, and institutional boycotts can be especially effective ways to achieve this end.

My trouble with this particular move, however, begins with the fact that none of the pain experienced by animals when they’re slaughtered is precisely necessary. The pain an animal feels on being killed is necessary for the creation of meat, but meat is not necessary for human life or health. The very concept of humane slaughter obscures this. The officials who made this decision and those who eat flesh at locations affected by it can pretend that they are not responsible for or benefiting from unnecessary pain.

Those who choose to eat meat should do so with a full awareness of what that choice creates in this world.