More Untruths and Omissions on Oprah
Continued from the previous post:
Now for the pigs, cows, and calves.
Let's address one really irritating remark right away, and then we'll move on to the other issues. The Most Preposterous Statement of the Show Award arguably belongs to the veal farmers, one of whom remarked that she and her husband are "really proud to be able to be raising calves in a way that Mother Nature intended." What? Veal was nowhere in Mother Nature's plan. Humans have no role in the way that calves are naturally intended to be raised—nature calls for calves to be raised by their mothers, not by humans. And Mother Nature did not intend for mother and child to be ripped apart, over and over again, so that the child can be killed and eaten (remember, veal is by definition the flesh of calves, so the calves still must be separated from their mothers far earlier than is natural and must be slaughtered while still babies). Cattle form strong attachments to one another in natural circumstances. The herd is a family, and mother and young form a lifelong bond. If Mother Nature finds out that someone's out there saying she'd approve of the veal industry in any form, boy, is she going to be pissed.
Next, you may recall hearing the husband of the veal-farming pair mention briefly to Oprah that they have to "rebreed" the cows. What does that mean? I'm glad you asked. Both the cows you saw on the free-raise veal farm and the sows you saw at the free-range pig farm must be "rebred" to keep reproducing the way that humans want them to. But there's nothing remotely natural about the way that happens. The female animals are restrained and most often artificially inseminated, often with the help of a so-called rape rack. (Even if a live bull is used to impregnate a cow, the cow is still restrained and forced into the act.) Horrifying, isn't it?
This is as good a time as any, I suppose, to also remind readers that the vast majority of veal does not come from farms such as the "happy" one featured on Oprah. Most veal is a byproduct of the dairy industry. Dairy cows must be repeatedly impregnated, to keep the milk flowing, milk intended for calves. The female calves born to dairy cows become dairy cows themselves. Many of the male calves, after being ripped from their mothers within hours, or at most a couple days, of their birth, are sent to veal farms. They do not get to drink the milk intended for them—because humans want it. The calves' substitute diet is intentionally substandard and nutritionally deficient. Dairy and veal are inextricably linked.
And finally, Oprah, the farmers, and Wayne Pacelle said nothing of what happens to all of these animals during transport and slaughter. Proposition 2 and free-range or cage-free farming do nothing to change the unspeakable horrors the animals experience during this last phase of their lives. There is nothing remotely humane about the way they die.
The guests on Oprah's program last week presented viewers with a false dichotomy. Indeed, they presented us with several false notions in general. The dialogue was set up to present us with a choice, a choice between supporting cruelty and supporting happy animals. The problem with this is multifold:
- The vast majority of animal products on the market—cage-free eggs included—do not come from operations such as the ones you saw. These "happy" farms are not at all representative of the farming industry, even the so-called humane sector.
- Even these supposedly humane operations still involve suffering, inherently, from the time that male chicks are discarded to die painful deaths and female chicks are debeaked, to the moment in which the calf is separated from his mother, to the repeated instances in which the pigs and cows are forcefully inseminated, to the terrifying moments on the transport truck and in the slaughterhouse that all of these animals suffer.
- Prop 2, when it goes into effect in 2015, if it passes, will not lead to the sorts of farms shown on Oprah's program. It requires only minimal changes, and great suffering will continue.
- There is another choice. You don't have to consume animal products. You can choose not to. You can choose to remove yourself from an industry that is inherently inhumane.
Pacelle's failure to even mention this other choice, even in passing, is what infuriated me. I'm aware of the limitations on what he could, or felt he could, say. And I'm aware that this was about passing Prop 2, not about creating new vegans and vegetarians. But one quick mention? What would that have hurt? Veganism and vegetarianism were mentioned only in the context of people saying that they were not suggesting veg*nism. When an audience member remarked that she buys cage-free eggs, even though they're more expensive, but doesn't buy free-range chicken flesh because it's too expensive, and when industry reps remarked on the price increases that come with cage-free farming, Pacelle had the perfect opportunity to suggest at least reduction of consumption of these animal products, as a way of reducing contribution to cruelty as well as cost of food. He didn't.
What was dangerous about this show was that it offered viewers a way to feel better about what they eat by withholding information from them and, arguably, lying to them. This show told people they should go out and spend more money to buy products that, at best, involve only slightly less cruelty. And the truly humane alternative was treated as a silly fringe idea.
Humans complain about the price of eggs, dairy, and meat. But if they were fully aware of all the real costs, the costs that can't be measured in dollars and cents, perhaps they wouldn't want to buy these products anyway.
Related Resources:
- Compassion Over Killing: "How Free is 'Free-Range'?"
- "A Rare Glimpse Inside a 'Free-Range' Egg Facility"
- HumaneMyth.org
Related Posts on This Blog:







COMMENTS (9)