Respect your food, and know from whence it came | Raucous Caucus | Tom Cushing | |

Local Blogs

Raucous Caucus

By Tom Cushing

E-mail Tom Cushing

About this blog: The Raucous Caucus shares the southpaw perspectives of this Boomer on the state of the nation, the world, and, sometimes, other stuff. I enjoy crafting it to keep current, and occasionally to rant on some issue I care about deeply...  (More)

View all posts from Tom Cushing

Respect your food, and know from whence it came

Uploaded: May 2, 2013
If you knew that other animals experience 'human' emotions, and that they act with what we call moral sense, would that knowledge change your view of how they ought to be treated, under our dominion? There's an emerging body of science that indicates that our relationship to 'lower species' is more like a continuum than a clearly demarked separation. We shouldn't ignore those findings, if our stewardship of the animal kingdom is to accurately reflect our rather exalted view of our civilized nature. But current legislative proposals do just that.

Two recent articles caught my eye, in ironic contrast. The first was Time magazine's The Mystery of Animal Grief (April 15 issue). It discusses recent research into various rituals among horses, elephants, whales, dogs and even some birds, that look very much like mourning. Crows gather around a fallen comrade, for example; in silence (remarkable enough for a crow), they pile sticks and other offerings around or atop the corpse, (as if?) paying respects. Elephants have been recorded as they attend the body of a herdmate for a week or more after her passing.

Dogs, as every pet partisan knows, have been observed grieving in many contexts, over centuries. In Homer's Odyssey, Argus the hound was the only one to recognize his master after his long absence. More recently, an akita was documented over an entire decade, visiting the local train station in hopes of greeting its departed master. And the famous Man's Best Friend speech includes the lines "? there by the [master's graveside will the noble dog be found, his head between his paws, his eyes sad but open in alert watchfulness, faithful and true even in death."

This science is young and its practitioners are careful in their conclusions, almost to the point of timidity. There is, apparently, nothing worse in their community than to be accused of sentimentality, or so-called anthropomorphism. But the findings are becoming irresistible, and directionally, they continue the work of those who have demonstrated clear evidence of what we would call "morality" among animal behaviors.

I had the opportunity to review Marc Bekoff's excellent, eye-opening book 'Wild Justice' for The Bark magazine a few years ago. The moral behaviors there are explained in terms of evolutionary theory, as being important in improving each species' success chances. I have been unable to shake the revelations of his work, or its implications: we humans and those beasts are a lot more alike than we've been led to believe, by religion and philosophy (the benighted Rene Des Cartes, in particular).

The other article, running in the polar opposite direction, concerns legislative proposals in a dozen states (CA's bill was recently withdrawn after it received unwanted attention) to enact so-called Ag-Gag laws. These purport to ban undercover investigations into conditions at slaughterhouses and other food producing operations. They are in response to horrifically effective videos produced not only by everybody's favorite whipping-radicals at PETA, but also the mainstream Humane Society of the United States.

Already enacted in seven states, Ag-Gag bills are intended to supplement laws that turned animal rights vandals into 'terrorists,' in the wake of several fur farm break-ins that foolishly liberated hundreds of the next season's fashion outerwear. In their most draconian versions, the laws criminalize any such investigation and its products (like videos), and render the investigators liable for any economic damage to the enterprise – regardless of the truth of the assertions made! Those damages can run into the multiple millions – the HSUS video in 2008 led to the largest meat recall in US history, and the eventual shuttering of the offending meat packer. Imagine, if you will, any other industry – say, defense contractors, casinos or stock exchanges -- exempting itself from whistle-blowing.

Supporters claim that abattoir operations are necessary, and inherently gruesome – one lobbyist compared them to open-heart surgery, which is more than a bit of a stretch. As such, the claim goes, they are easily miss-represented on film, to the possible detriment of legitimate operators. In fact, however, the practices shown – baby chick grinding, chicken bashing, piglet tossing, veal and sow cages, impaling downed cattle on forklifts come to mind -- have been gratuitous and indefensibly cruel.

Moreover, despite Big Food's preference that we believe our steaks grow in shrink wrap, it is hard to think of another industry where conditions are more bound-up with the public interest – even if you don't care about the animals whose flesh sustains us. Food-borne illness (certainly not all of it from pre-market processing, as many a fridge will attest) sickens 48 million Americans each year, and kills 3,000 of us. That sobering reality argues for no-free-passes, especially in these days of smaller government at all levels, including food inspection.

It is nearly certain that the Ag-Gag laws recently enacted will not pass First Amendment muster, as the Supreme Court has generally taken at least an intermediately dim view of government interference with news gathering. But until the issue is litigated, we won't know (especially with this mediocre crop of Supremes) and there will have been an interim "chilling effect" on this form of undercover investigative work. It's an act of real courage to put both freedom and financial future on the line for a story, however well-meant, and however likely is your ultimate vindication.

Indeed, returning to the first article, shouldn't we be demanding More transparency, on both safety and, now, moral decency grounds?

California famously passed Prop 2 in 2008, which provides for better conditions for food animals raised within our borders. Perhaps instead of banning video in packing houses, there should be mandatory cameras at critical stages of the operation, with real-time posting to the internet? That sort of transparency, together with certification of particularly humane operations – like that won by Foster Farms of-late, would serve to ensure safety, and fail-safe humane standards.

I have no conceptual problem with human consumption of food animals – as long as they are really allowed to be animals while they are living, and their deaths are swift, sure and otherwise humane (who among us could ask for much more for ourselves?). Our industrial ag system is very, very far from that concept at present. And we have more and more reasons – selfish and selfless – to change that. We need to respect our food, and know its story.

Synopsis: Ag-Gag laws fly in the face of new science that suggests we're closer cousins of our food than we may have realized.
What is it worth to you?


Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on May 3, 2013 at 10:47 am

Weblinks don't convert well from my word processor. In case anyone's interested --

Time article on Animal Grief: Web Link

Book Review, Wild Justice: Web Link

Ag-Gag Laws article: Web Link

Yale Law Comment on Constitutionality of Ag-Gag Laws: Web Link

Posted by Dirk, a resident of Alamo,
on May 3, 2013 at 12:15 pm

On a dirt road in Tucson I saw a dead crow, probably the victim of an automobile. Above it, sitting at the top of a telephone pole, was another crow, apparently looking down at the dead one. A day later I noticed that the dead crow was still in the road. I looked up, and the crow on the pole was still there. That crow was grieving.

Posted by Dirk, a resident of Alamo,
on May 3, 2013 at 12:27 pm

Two hundred years ago slavery was accepted in this country. Many leading citizens owned slaves and almost all believed Africans to be naturally inferior to Europeans. The idea of women voting was laughable. I have often wondered what we consider natural and acceptable now that our descendents in another century or two will consider deeply immoral. Surely we have not yet, even in America, arrived at perfection.

One of the most likely candidates for our (in the future) very immoral behavior is our treatment of our cousins in the animal kingdom. Eating them perhaps, but certainly treating them with horrible cruelty.

Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on May 3, 2013 at 2:17 pm

Hi Dirk -- There's a book called "For the Love of Animals" by Kathryn Shevelow that recounts the founding days of the animal protection movement in England. Web Link
She indicates that there was much overlap with the abolitionist movement. A BARK review of that book is here: Web Link

Posted by spcwt, a resident of Danville,
on May 3, 2013 at 7:25 pm

Tom needs to connect the dots between his love of animals, his love of the environment, and his desire to lower healthcare costs (Obamacare notwithstanding). Consider the following:

One acre of land can produce 20,000 pounds of potatoes. One acre of land can produce 165 pounds of beef.

It takes 1 pound of grain to make 1 pound of bread. It takes 20 pounds of grain to make 1 pound of beef.

It takes 23 gallons of water to produce a pound of tomatoes. It takes 5,214 gallons of water to produce a pound of beef.

Livestock production is the #1 cause of water pollution in the U.S.

The countries with the diets highest in animal products are also the countries with the highest rates of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, etc.

Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on May 4, 2013 at 7:35 am

Somebody's a lot better a growing tomatoes than I am -- but point taken. I'm just trying not to alienate the Entire readership, all at once.

There's no Q that eating patterns are going to change (or return to earlier habits), and that much of that change could have a health pay-off. But only a central-planning-loving, suburban lifestyle-hating, birkenstock-wearing, pony-tailed socialist would have the temerity to suggest it in a blog.

Posted by Trish, a resident of Danville,
on May 7, 2013 at 7:06 am

This is a very interesting concept. :) My opinion is that this view should be expanded from a higher elevation. I am in agreement that humans and animals are very closely related. However, rather than saying animals are like us, I would argue that we are like them.

As a matter of fact, among the few things separating humans from animals is our ability to use logic, language, and learning. Although we know nothing when we are born, humans have a large propensity to absorb information. This is why learning and education is so important for humans (especially children).

Without it, I believe we fall back to our natural state which is that of the animal kingdom. We are at the top of the food chain. Where other species find balance, we are still fighting among each other...

Posted by spcwt, a resident of Danville,
on May 7, 2013 at 1:39 pm


I know you said you don?t like reading articles on because it?s too liberal for you. But you really should consider making an exception this one time.Web Link

The article says when you account for feed production, deforestation, and animal waste, the livestock industry produces up to 51% of all global greenhouse gas emissions!

All we need to do stop climate change is to stop eating cheeseburgers. NO JOKE!!

The U.S. could impose a meat tax that could be used to stop global warming and fund Obamacare at the same time!

Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on May 7, 2013 at 5:38 pm

Hi s-p: he did write 17-51%, which puts a bit of a different spin on it, for me, than "up to 51%" does (see, I did read it).

And then there's this guy Allan Savory: Web Link whose TED Talk contends that we need More grazing herds, which might mean either more, or at least healthier grass-fed meats, to restore the planet's grasslands as a mammoth carbon sink that would counteract global warming.

Similarly, in The Omnivore's Dilemma, Michael Pollan writes that Polyface Farm rejuvenates its pasturelands in three phases: grass grows, then cows eat the grass, then chickens distribute the cow manure and add their own, so grass grows better (rinse, repeat).

Lots of possibilities; somebody ought to write a column about sustainability.

Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on May 23, 2013 at 10:19 am

For anyone who's interested in reading a thoughtful article on animal rights/welfare issues, I came across this one in a compilation called "Michael Pollan's Greatest Hits." It's from 2002 and remains at least current, if not more so. Ultimately, it's about living consciously.

Web Link

Folks who've read his best selling 'Omnivore's Dilemma' will recognize Polyface Farm. The interests he discusses are quite consistent with Bernie Rollin's notion of 'telos' -- respect for the essence of the animal during its lifetime. Pretty good guiding concept, it seems to me.

Follow this blogger.
Sign up to be notified of new posts by this blogger.



Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Burning just one "old style" light bulb can cost $150 or more per year
By Sherry Listgarten | 12 comments | 3,024 views

Premiere! “I Do I Don’t: How to build a better marriage” – Here, a page/weekday
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 1,447 views

Community foundations want to help local journalism survive
By Tim Hunt | 7 comments | 721 views