Julia Child's Bad Side, Veal Calves, and the Movie I Won't Be Seeing

There's much talk about Julia Child these days, given the release of a movie in which Meryl Streep plays Child (and plays her quite well, apparently). But I catch myself gritting my teeth every time I hear adoring mention of her lately. Julia Child may be a cooking icon, but she was no friend to animals. And I don't mean simply because she cooked and ate them and advocated cooking and eating them. Julia Child regularly mocked vegetarianism and animal rights (going on record at least once, and I imagine more than once, with the actual words "I hate vegetarians"), and that was indeed offensive and annoying. But worse, even when confronted directly, in person, with the cruelties required for such so-called foods as veal, she simply didn't give a damn, and she didn't hesitate to make that clear.

About a year ago, I stumbled upon the video embedded at the end of this post. It paints a less-than-flattering portrait of the much-loved chef, at least from the perspective of those who don't consider animals to be inanimate objects and who wouldn't happily visit a clearly cruel veal farm and declare it "great." In this video titled "Julia Child Battles PETA, Animal Rights," food columnist Molly O'Neill recalls for a New School group an experience she and her friend Julia Child shared and gives insight on Child's position against animal rights--or apparently even animal welfare, for that matter. A partial transcript follows. Keep in mind that this was a talk in which O'Neill was singing the praises of Julia Child and of her legacy, not criticizing her.

There was this--there was this big thing about veal, and PETA was going crazy, and there were these terrible stories about veal. And Julia insisted that, um, that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the veal industry and that she and I would sail forth one day, and we would go and inspect a veal farm, which we did.

And, um, it was horrendous [laughter from audience--yes, laughter] . . . I worked on a rescue squad, and that's the only reason I have seen worse things. And Julia thought it was great. And Julia would absolutely not bow to the fundamentalism of the animal rights movement because she didn't want to live in a world that was controlled by people getting power over other people and limiting a worldview. She had wonderful politics, social politics--she was a lifelong Democrat and very proud of it and very liberal--and she had some of the worst food politics I've ever been in a kitchen with [more audience laughter].

There's so much wrong with O'Neill's analysis of Child's motives and of the animal rights movement that it's difficult to know where to start. For one, Child's unyielding support of the barbaric veal industry was a result of nobly not wanting to live in a world in which people controlled people? Yes, that's the reason animal advocates have come down on the veal-dairy industry--the desire to control people. Not the unnecessary nature of brutally killing and eating animals or even the horrible conditions in which calves are usually kept. Not the trauma and devastation that result when mother cows and their calves are separated shortly after birth. Not the harrowing wails of the so-called dairy cows or the frightened cries of babies ripped from their mothers and then often tied up and refused normal movement, much-needed love, or even proper, natural nutrition. Not the desperate attempts of the calves to suckle anything they can, even as they're being dragged into the slaughterhouse. Not the injustice of it all. Animal rights activists don't care about any of this--they care only about gaining control over innocent, beleaguered animal- and dairy-eating people. Right. Poor, brave chef.

I'm baffled that O'Neill expects us to admire Julia Child because she shrugged her shoulders at the veritable hell animals were put through so that she could cook and eat their flesh. Even when faced with some of the cruelest of animal agriculture's cruel practices, she considered humans' supposed right to commit these atrocities and eat whatever and whomever they want to override nonhumans' right to live--or even, from merely a welfare standpoint, to live without extreme pain, fear, and suffering. Indeed, Child insisted (again, on more than one occasion) that veal must come from calves who've been confined and kept immobile to be considered "real prime veal." She isn't someone who just didn't know about the cruelty involved in animal agriculture. She knew, and she defended and supported it.

Julia Child (and Molly O'Neill?) apparently didn't (and don't) want to live in a world where people limit a "worldview" by daring to advocate for nonviolence. It's "fundamentalism" for animal advocates to simply want to live in a world where humans choose not to oppress, inflict suffering on, and slaughter our fellow animals. Hard-hearted refusal to oppose or even acknowledge cruelty is strong and admirable--and arrogant refusal to consider that you may be wrong is noble--but compassion and promotion of compassion are fundamentalist and controlling? Please. Julia Child's opposition to animal rights was not because of an opposition to oppression; animal advocates' stance is in opposition to oppression.

Whatever may have been good about Julia Child--and I am certain there was indeed much good about her, just as I believe there is absolutely much good in the majority of people who haven't yet had (or never do have) their "Aha" moment regarding their role in exploiting, torturing, and killing animals--I nevertheless can't get past her complete and selfish disregard for animals (and her condescending attitude toward people who do care for animals) to personally admire her. And I certainly won't be paying money to watch a film that celebrates a life and career spent telling people that their selfish pleasure is all that's important, even at the cost of great suffering and cruelty. When it comes to compassion, Julia Child was not a role model.

---

AP Photo