JoAnnFarb.com
  • Home
  • video
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • recipes
  • About
    • About/Podcasts and Videos
    • Contact
    • presentations
  • Resources

Trading Patronage for  Power in the Animal Right's Movement

3/4/2019

19 Comments

 
Picture
United Poultry Concerns stands out among the longer running animal-advocacy organizations as one of the few that has never sold-out the animals for its own interest in fund-raising or growing it's organization or base of support. When PETA, Mercy for Animals, HSUS and so many others followed Peter Singer's lead and signed on to the infamous Whole Foods Letter that undermined the ethical messaging of animal advocacy, UPC was one of the few that did not do that.

That was why I was especially excited to be invited this year to present at UPC's Conscious Eating Conference in Berkeley, California. My presentation was one of three in the morning, while the afternoon featured a jaw-dropping debate on clean meat -- probably the first such debate to happen in the movement.

There was an amazing synergy at this event. When I gave my presentation: "Don't Push Your Values: Under Pressure -- Social Justice Progress amidst Societal Group Coercion" (see my presentation Here) I didn't know the specific evidence that professors John Sanbonmatsu and Vasile Stanscu (arguing that clean meat would harm animals in the debate) would be presenting to  counter the slick polished rhetoric of those trying to promote clean meat at this event. But the debate provided the audience with an amazing opportunity to witness for themselves the very dynamic my slide presentation sought to bring to people's attention -- part of which involves good people facilitating injustices they claim to oppose.

Well known activists, Bruce Friedrich and Paul Shapiro led the crusade to get animal advocates to support clean meat and it is due almost exclusively to the efforts of these two men that many of the large animal advocacy groups have given their endorsement to clean meat. Previously I wrote about ethical problems when Shapiro and Friedrich appeared on stage at KC's first vegfest in my article, How Co-option of Grass Roots Activism Played out in KC's First Vegfest, after that event's organizers made the unfortunate decision to "Trade patronage for power" by having Friedrich and Shapiro as its main speakers. (I just learned of the term, "Tradiing Patronage for Power" from a sociology student at the Conscious Eating Conference, who told me after she watched my presentation that there was a term to express what I was describing.)


This past weekend Friedrich had a new comrade to join him in his rhetoric (Shapiro lost his job at HSUS for sexual misconduct.) Leah Garces, the new president of Mercy for Animals was his partner in the debate and also enthusiastically promoting clean meat.

If you have been working for justice for animals for a long time, you may appreciate how devastating the marketing of "local" "organic" "happy" "humane" meat has been to the cause. Following the growing popularity of the locovore movement the number of abused animals increased dramatically. There are theoretical reasons that may explain this such as the fact that these marketing ploys have given more respectability to killing other beings (as long as it's done the "right" way.)

I can certainly see evidence of this in my own community of Lawrence, Ks.

When Lawrence's natural foods coop formed, it was entirely vegetarian. But once it started selling happy meat, the shelf space dedicated to animals and their bodily secretions began to grow year after year. Coop advertising worked to legitimize and then increase demand for these items. Then the coop began selling CAFO meat, dairy and eggs alongside the "humane" versions. So clearly, rather than simply providing an alternative to CAFO products, Happy meat legitimized CAFO products and paved the way for its growth into new markets.

Happy meat simply provided yet another option for enjoying body parts of exploited beings, while serving to placate some people's moral sentiments, in the process of helping to grow markets for a wider variety of products that involve violence to animals.

As far as I can tell, coop member-owners who justify their meat/dairy/egg consumption on the grounds that they consume "ethically" produced products, raised no objections about the fact that CAFO meat was now being sold at the coop too. Nor have I witnessed the many people I know personally who raise and kill their own animals, refusing to partake of CAFO products when they are served at public events or at private gatherings. And when I went on the local farm tour, one of the farmers who was also a mother, told me that she told her children, "it's ok to eat CAFO meat" because it's going into their, "happy bellies." 

So now, alongside the exploding growth of vegan options everywhere, we have record numbers of animals being physically and sexually assaulted and then killed for profit. Since it is now easier than ever to be vegan, as the marketplace of vegan options explodes, how can anyone suggest that the introduction and growth of "humane" "organic" or "pasture-raised" options for meat/dairy/eggs have overall been a good thing for animals? And yet -- that was the very reason that many animal advocates gave some years back as to why we should encourage the growth of "happy meat" options. In fact, one of the loudest voices, from within the ranks of those claiming to support justice for animals was Bruce Friedrich.

It was Friedrich who spoke first in last weekend's debate, and emphatically stated that because the vegan movement has utterly failed (which he supports with numbers showing that per capita meat consumption is at an all-time high) he believes he can do more good for animals now by shifting from promoting veganism to promoting the brand new -- as yet untested technology of clean meat (also known as cell-based meat or cultured meat.)

But to say that we in the vegan movement are not making progress in our work to lay a foundation for the largest peaceful revolution the world has ever known begs the question...why?

Why would someone who claims to care about justice for animals choose to highlight only evidence in a public talk to vegans, that suggests we are completely failing? Friedrich then followed up his assertion of failure with the most sophisticated PR I have ever heard about why promoting alternatives to veganism (which claim to be less terrible for animals -- but still exploit them) will be better for animals then just spending our time promoting veganism. His perspective -- especially coming from someone publicly seen as a supporter of animal rights was chilling to say the least, and looked like the perfect example of what film producer James Laveck wrote about in his extraordinary essay, Invasion of the Movement Snatchers.

Do your own critical thinking...Ask yourself, compared to ten years ago, how often does someone -- who may not even be vegan themselves, tell you about someone they know (a relative, neighbor, colleague etc) who is vegan? how many items at the store now carry a label that says, "vegan" as compared to ten years ago? And why have non-vegan business entities proclaimed 2019 as, "The Year of the Vegan"?

These things suggest veganism IS winning the hearts and minds of people in increasing numbers. When someone goes vegan whether or not they fall off the wagon several times in their journey to grow as an ethical human being -- the fact that they even try is evidence that our peaceful revolution is winning hearts and minds. Many people struggling to quit tobacco have a circuitous path to becoming a non-smoker -- perhaps many vegans do too.  Keep in mind, customs that encourage animal exploitation are more ubiquitous and powered by a larger economic engine than tobacco use ever was!

It is also worth noting -- that prior to the Civil War, the number of slaves in America actually increased every single decade -- right up until legalized slavery ended. Does Friedrich know this?

Any one else having a "deja vu" experience regarding Friedrich's promotion of clean meat?
In Friedrich's activism with PETA, Farm Sanctuary and Farm Forward, his most memorable messaging was not about authentic veganism (ie, it is wrong to exploit and kill other beings, and vegans should not be endorsing ANY forms of exploitation.) but rather about "suffering reduction," which as we have seen is a slippery slope to justifying ongoing violence. In his time working with Farm Forward (as a founding board member) Friedrich actually encouraged animal activists to support happy animal exploitation. He actually worked to grow the market and production capacities for animal exploiting operations. Look at these screen shots from www.HumaneMyth.org and archived pages from Farm Forward:
Picture
Picture
Picture

Pay close attention to Friedrich's rhetoric now, because once again he is THE single largest, most compelling voice within the animal advocacy movement suggesting that some new trend in exploiting animals will lead to reductions in the number of exploited and killed animals.

Friedrich's arguments that clean meat will be good for animals are similar to those he made about how "humane" meat would be good for them. By Friedrich's own estimation his previous efforts on behalf of animals failed to reduce the number of animals being exploited – so why is he using exactly the same approach in promoting clean meat?  In fact, as the professors in this debate pointed out -- industry documents show that investors are expecting that rather then replacing CAFO meat, clean meat will add yet a third option to the menu for those still clinging to  archaic culinary traditions based upon violence and exploitation -- with CAFO meat continuing to grow until it can grow no further because of limitations in available land -- at which point, clean meat will still be able to offer continued growth and investment returns.

One of the points I heard both Friedrich and Garces emphasize to the audience was to suggest that because they each have a long history of working on behalf of animals, and because so many other of the professional animal advocacy groups share their view that clean meat is a good idea and will help reduce the number of animals being exploited and killed, that we should trust their judgement and all of us should follow their example and support it too.

But history is full of examples of good people who jumped on board and supported bad ideas that facilitated systemic injustices. Growing justice takes more than hero worship. We need to use our best critical thinking combined with compassion, while keeping our eye on the goal -- creating a world where justice and non-violence are normalized. The character of the people promoting an idea is less important, than evaluating the idea on its own merits. When someone suggests to me that I simply do what they suggest because they are trustworthy, rather than doing my  own critical thinking and dig deep for myself -- I suspect that the evidence that supports their perspective probably isn't that good.


One of the problems with the professional animal advocacy movement (ie the big groups) is that they readily absorb the corporate mindset -- which often exemplifies and reinforces paradigms that work better for supporting capitalism rather then justice. With many staff members on their payroll, growing and attracting more members/donations can take precedence over advancing justice. And justice can be hard to measure and quantify -- but the corporate paradigm emphasizes things that can be most readily measured and quantified. As a result they often use, proxies that stand in for things that are hard to measure -- which can lead to erroneous conclusions, that encourage choices that aren't always in line with justice. What is measurable may give no insight about how close we are to a tipping point, that can lead to big jumps in social justice.

I remember meeting a man years ago, who told me of his visit to a communist-block country one year before the wall in Germany fell,  and censorship, and other injustices appeared to be at an all time high. This guy recounted speaking with dozens of underground justice advocates who all told him they had little hope that their efforts would create any benefit in their lifetime. But they saw themselves as laying a foundation for their grandchildren, who they hoped might someday be able to travel outside the country and not go to jail for speaking publicly about things they found unjust. But then my acquaintance returned about a year after the Berlin Wall fell, and he encountered a transformed society. The underground activist’s dream had been realized, and this point was made to me: It is hard to know just how close we might be to a “tipping point, when we are in the midst of fighting for justice.

As was brought out in the debate, currently there is no published science to suggest that  we are even capable of producing clean meat without needing to feed the cell cultures with FBS (fetal bovine serum) FBS is a product obtained after a pregnant cow is slaughtered and fluids are extracted from the body of her still living baby. But Friedrich and Garces are confident we will come up with a plant-based alternative to this that is scale-able for industrial clean meat production. They are confident too that we will work out how to grow large amounts of cell based meat, in ways that will have a lower carbon footprint than traditional meat production -- even though the professors presented evidence that at it's current state of development this technology is likely to use egregious amounts of energy and produce even more greenhouse gasses.


Yet Bruce Friedrich and Leah Garces suggest that those who would like to see a vegan world, should support this new approach to marketing of animal exploitation. But in my experience Friedrich's prior attempts along this same path -- promoting humane meat --made my efforts to promote veganism even harder.

It was about 15 years ago, when I had my first experience with how counter-productive happy meat would be to justice for animals. In the decade prior to this time, when I told people about the horrific things happening to animals on industrial farms they had only two choices: Stop buying and using things from animals (ie go vegan) or continue supporting the industrial food machine and just look away. I still remember my shock and despair when I was talking with a college student on a downtown sidewalk about veganism and she looked me square in the eye and told me with all earnestness about how she wished I could have been with her when she interned on a small local organic farm. She said that she had been vegetarian before that time, but after she spent time with this lovely farm family and came to see how kind they were to their animals and how they killed them with such respect, she changed her mind about being vegetarian. (Reread that last sentence!) Over and over she kept telling me, “If you could see the respect with which we treated the animals, you would have no problem with eating them either.”

How does killing someone get “rebranded” as “respect?”

And just as importantly, how does being an accomplice to such violence, while embracing an Orwellian view of it, impact one’s ability to recognize other injustices, or oppose certain paradigms that support oppression?
  
As the debate progressed, it was clear that Leah Garces was less knowledgeable of the details and less invested in the promotion of clean meat then her pro clean-meat partner Bruce Friedrich. It also appeared to me, that this was Leah’s first time, struggling to defend this perspective amidst the new information she learned from Professors Sanbonmatsu and Stanscu.

After the conference, UPC took all the speakers out to dinner at the fantastic upscale vegan restaurant, “Sanctuary,” and every speaker was there – except Leah. This left me hoping that maybe Leah had actually “gotten” the gist of my presentation and was reflecting upon the role she was playing to help promote clean meat, in light of the historical record I shared in my talk, which explained how time and again, otherwise good people have played integral roles in advancing social injustices that contradicted the values that they claim to support.

It will be interesting to see how her organization, Mercy for Animals goes forward now.  Will they continue to align with the powerful oppressive mindset – supported by a growing investor base, that is driving clean meat, and supported by most of the people who are her peers within the professional animal advocacy world, or will she break ranks and use her new bully pulpit at MFA to support authentic justice for all beings?

I was heartened when attendees at this event came up to me at the end and explained how they had come in expecting to confirm their perspective that Clean Meat would be good for animals, but that after the debate they now could see clearly how clean meat was just the latest example of green washing. Some went further. They told me that having previously read the OUTSTANDING essay by visionary film producer James Laveck, (linked to above -- but HERE it is again -- please read it!)  they knew that they had just witnessed for themselves, exactly how moneyed interests co-opt the long term efforts of grass-roots activists, and set back our work for social justice progress.

I encourage you to watch this debate for yourself and share it widely with others. But to see it in the context of important historical facts, please watch the video of my presentation first
 

Picture
19 Comments
Spunky Bunny link
3/8/2019 12:45:33 pm

Thank you for this article! I watched the entire debate this morning. Before I watched it, I was FOR lab-grown meat. But after watching it, I am now 100% against it! Lab-grown meat is obviously ANTI-VEGAN propaganda, very similar to the propaganda of humane-meat. No social justice movement ever succeeded by abandoning its principles. Veganism HAS to be about getting rid of speciesism. Lab-grown meat is completely speciesist. If it's wrong to eat lab-grown human meat, then it's wrong to eat lab-grown animal meat.

Reply
JoAnn Farb
3/8/2019 12:53:24 pm

Hey Spunky Bunny:

Thanks for sharing that --- but can you tell me....how were you able to watch this debate? If it is up somewhere -- can you share the link with me?

Thanks,
JoAnn

Reply
Spunky Bunny link
3/8/2019 01:14:54 pm

The debate is available to watch on "Jane Unchained" website at: https://janeunchained.com/2019/03/04/is-clean-meat-the-solution-to-close-slaughterhouses/

JoAnn
3/8/2019 08:09:00 pm

Thank you for that link -- although I will add, I was unable to get the video to play from that page...perhaps it only works for those who are signed into FB?

But maybe it will work for others. Soon UPC will post their footage and when they do I will link to that here as well.

Reply
Jessica
3/10/2019 10:13:34 am

I suspect that if clean meat becomes reality and widely accepted that its promoters and investors will become quite wealthy. Hence,we need to examine why someone is pushing hard for its acceptance and endorsement from the AR movement. Humane meat and cage free campaigns garnered several large AR ag orgs major 6 and 7 figure grants to promote these welfare programs (i.e. check out Open Philanlthropy Project). I believe we need to step back and evaluate these large orgs that accept these grants - are they really abolitionists for even their org names more suggest welfarism: mercy, humane, etc.

I am also concerned that with the introduction of this clean meat might also cause animal testing to occur to determine its long term safety and health risks. Or also that the meat industry would conduct animal tests to undermine the safety of clean meat, if found to be. Again, animals are losing out.

I strongly stand with your points that the only way to go is to promote veganism, avoidance of all exploitation. We can not trade one exploitation for another and call that a victory for animals.

Reply
JoAnn
3/10/2019 09:14:39 pm

Jessica,

You have raised a lot of good points. This essay could easily have been much longer. There is certainly no shortage of troubling angles that one can look at related to this issue of clean meat.

Thanks for contributing to the conversation.
JoAnn

Reply
Jack McMillan
3/10/2019 11:36:59 am

Wow JoAnn- Your essay here is one of the most profoundly articulate and well-reasoned discussions I have ever read. So many of us deep down understand the sell-out, but can't explain it succinctly. On the surface, they appear to have benevolent motives, and who are we to dis them. But on a deeper level, they are absolutely reenforcing the societal mindset that looks to continue rationalizing the enslavement of animals and the appropriation of their lives.

And the cultured meat thing- drives me crazy. Again, on the surface it appears "good", that we are developing "alternatives", but underlying it, it is just riddled with holes in basic vegan logic. It takes one step forward toward veganism, and 3 steps back, on SO many levels. Including reinforcing the "meat" addiction. It is a fad that will not go away, with so many alchemists behind it, but no authentic vegan advocate should promote it. Let the non-v world do that, if they must. But "leaders" in the V mvmt must never do that. Doing so is abandoning the fundamental vegan message and dropping down into the dredges of society that wants to maintain its arrogant, disengenuous, and speciesist stance. Basically telling them it's ok to remain that way, just "try" to "reduce suffering". "Leaders" in the mvmt must set the bar as high as possible. And not muddy it up with distractions into a way out of the moral conflict of exploiting fellow beings. "Leaders" must set the highest ideal to aspire to. If they (and we) don't, who will? If they (and we) don't, and lower the bar, society will, as it is always wont to to do, only attain a place somewhere short of that bar. It is a sell-out of the movement, and a sell-out of people too- telling them they are not moral enough, or thoughtful enough, to actually aspire to a highest ethic. Message ends up- "it's ok to cop out, and be less that what you can be".

Imagine if MLK, etc, had lowered their standard of expectation of people. And only spoke to the lowest common denomenator of society and its basest values. People want to be affirmed for what they CAN aspire to. Anything less than that is a dis-service, and an insult to their intelligence, and their morality.

I have a presentation coming up. I'm going to aspire to be as articulate and heartfelt as one JoAnn Farb! Will fall somewhere short, but gotta reach for the stars! Thanks again for this great blog essay.
-J

Reply
JoAnn
3/10/2019 09:19:05 pm

Thank you Jack

Reply
Ellen
3/10/2019 12:17:37 pm

Thank you for pulling down the curtains. I have never been in favor of "clean meat" knowing the process in how it's grown. Both Friedrich and Shapiro have vested interests in making clean meat work so their biased/greenwashed comments are not surprising.

I plan to share this blog entry as often as I possibly can, including on the Facebook page named Lab Meat is not Vegan. Thank you again!

Reply
JoAnn
3/10/2019 09:24:37 pm

Ellen,

I am not on FB -- so I really appreciate you sharing this there. Education is our most important tool

Thanks,
JoAnn

Reply
Jack McMillan
3/11/2019 07:47:53 am

Ellen, yes.... And JoAnn if you have not seen this one. Which is just the beginning of the absurdity of "clean" "meat". As you both fully see and know. But most people just do not know how to put more than 2 thoughts together on any topic that takes just a wee bit of critival thinking. Sigh...
https://www.thoughtco.com/laboratory-grown-meat-is-not-vegan-127673

Reply
JoAnn
3/11/2019 08:04:48 am

Jack,

Thank you for posting that article -- it is really good and explains additional important facts that my article and comments to this page thus far had not covered. Hope people will click on it AND James Laveck's article, Invasion of the movement snatchers so that they will understand the bigger picture here. Also -- my daughter Sarina just posted a her latest 10 minute YouTube video which contributes even more to this conversation -- "Should 'Anti-Science' Views be Given a Platform?" Here is the link to her video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PidPd1sUE-I

JoAnn

HAROLD BROWN
3/10/2019 04:36:13 pm

Well done. If one pays attention to the rhetoric used by these organizations and their representatives there are two buzz words that recur constantly, suffering and cruelty. Most folks agree that they don't want animals to suffer or be treated cruelly. This meme is an easy sell to a very wide audience and since these organizations depend on checkbook advocacy it is the perfect marriage. Talking about the violation of autonomy and death of the individuals involved is seen as a hard sell and not worth the while. It costs them money. It amazes me that these people and organizations claim they are speaking the "truth" but who's truth? If they were speaking the truth of those that are dying then they wouldn't say the things they do. Perhaps its just me. I have too much blood on my hands to forsake those that fall victim to the whims of humans.

Reply
JoAnn
3/10/2019 09:26:40 pm

Harold,

I appreciate you sharing that.

JoAnn

Reply
Laurie Masters link
3/31/2019 03:23:54 pm

Hi, Joann. Awesome article. But I question your reasoning here: "And why have non-vegan business entities proclaimed 2019 as, "The Year of the Vegan"?"

While of course animal rights activists touch people's hearts and minds each and every day, I would wager that Brian Wendel and his ilk are responsible for the lion's share of the recent increase in veganism.

That's the world I live in, as the former house editor at Forks Over Knives, and having worked with and edited writings for dozens of WFPB authors over the past two decades.

FOK and similar WFPB health/nutrition-focused films and companies are slipping people in the back door of veganism ... often incrementally. And a great many in that audience begin to contemplate, and eventually care about animals, over time.

While I celebrate all avenues in, I strongly suspect that personal health is the motivation behind the majority of new vegans. What happens to their minds and hearts thereafter seems to me to be the place where animal advocacy has the most likelihood of influencing. The same would be true of so-called humane

Reply
Harold Brown
4/1/2019 01:08:59 pm

I think it is important to understand that what one eats doesn't make one a vegan. To me there is no correlation between a plant based diet and being vegan. The former is a act that concerns the self. Not others. Being vegan is a holistic way of showing up in the world with both an ethical and moral consideration for all that is.

Reply
JoAnn Farb
4/1/2019 03:07:20 pm

Laurie and Harold --

I appreciate the comments that both of you have shared. Harold's comment is on point to part of what I was going to say you (you beat me to it Harold!)

I would also add, that I think there is a tendency for each of us to be in our respective, "bubble's" and to assume that what we see is common everywhere. Laurie since you are so involved in the WFPBD world -- it totally makes sense that you would believe that most new vegans are coming from that place -- though as Harold pointed out, many people who are WFPBD -- don't embrace the ethical perspective that actually defines veganism, and so I would not consider them to be vegans -- though they may eat a "vegan diet."

That said, I have also seen examples of people who come to veganism from a WFPBD -- because once they see that they can live a happy healthy life without eating animals, they are now open to what is the heart of veganism.
.
However, it is worth noting that people who adopt a vegan diet primarily for their health, can often just as quickly jump to some other diet...
.
While I am happy to hear about anyone eschewing animal foods -- I am most thrilled when doing so is an expression of one's commitment to embrace non-violence and non-exploitation.

Reply
Laurie Masters link
4/1/2019 10:50:50 pm

What you wrote makes sense, JoAnn ... and that's actually why I asked.

You asked Why have non-vegan business entities proclaimed 2019 as, "The Year of the Vegan"? ...

And I was curious whether you would agree, from your perspective, that people who have come to vegan eating because of FOK and other WFPB influencers are the major drivers of the upsurge in demand for vegan food products.

Interested in your thoughts on this. Thanks!

Reply
JoAnn Farb
4/2/2019 06:17:24 am

Laurie

You raise an interesting question. I don't know if the increase in demand for vegan products is being driven primarily by people with an interest in health coming through the FOK door -- or if it's people who have seen Cowspiracy and want to help the environment, or if its people experimenting with option that don't require violence to animals -- I can posit theories to support or oppose each (LOL)


But I posed the question about 2019 being proclaimed, "the year of the vegan" to make the point, that the marketplace obviously recognizes there is more interest in veganism/avoiding animal products now than ever before --- though that might not yet translate into measurable increases in the number of people who are in fact vegan, it certainly appears to me to be a good thing, and perhaps indicative that we are approaching a societal-wide tipping point in terms of a change in perspective when it comes to exploiting other beings.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Picture
    Click to learn why people Fail on plant-based diets

    Categories

    All
    Environment
    Health
    Parenting
    Recipes
    Social Justice

    My Best Articles are HERE
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.