PETA: Hard at work co-opting the animal rights movement

Word is getting around this week that there has been an enormous "victory" for chickens in Canada. PETA has ended its negative publicity campaign and boycott against Kentucky Fried Chicken because the company has agreed to purchase chicken flesh only from companies that use controlled-atmosphere killing (CAK) and implement other animal welfare measures that include decreased crowding of birds and reduction in the use of unnecessary growth hormones and other drugs. KFC will also offer a "vegan chicken" menu item.

So essentially, an organization that claims to speak on behalf of animals is no longer encouraging people to boycott a company that sells the flesh of chickens to make money. How is this a victory for chickens? How is this consistent with the vegan message that PETA claims to promote?

I think that campaigns like this are extremely negative for the animal rights movement and extremely confusing for members of the general public, to whom we must appeal if we want animals to stop being killed for food. From the article:

KFC Canada President Steve Langford said he was delighted with the agreement.

“It will be nice to put this behind us,” Langford said. “Our preference is to have nothing negative attached to our brand.”

Langford said the Canadian operations, which are independent of those in the U.S., had chosen to take the situation into its own hands and talk to PETA about animal welfare.

“Once I got involved and we actually met face to face, we found out that we had no differences of opinion about how animals should be treated,” Langford said.

KFC kills chickens to make money, so how can PETA have "no differences of opinion about how animals should be treated." Isn't killing chickens part of KFC's treatment of animals?

Langford indicates that with the PETA boycott over, there will be "nothing negative attached to our brand." I guess killing chickens to make a buck isn't so negative once PETA ends its boycott of your company. To be honest, it sounds like even more money in the bank. And in fact, it is. PETA's own assessment of CAK outlines the economic advantages of this method of killing chickens for producers.

PETA spokesperson Matt Prescott gushes in an e-mail announcing the victory that "We didn't win our KFC campaign but we did win a part of it." If the campaign wasn't won, then why is the boycott being called off?

Most of the 300 independent franchisees have agreed to abide by the agreement with PETA. "It appears as though our campaign affected the bottom line to the point where the company finally had enough,'" Prescott said. "That said, I also believe that KFC in Canada is genuinely concerned about animal welfare."

So if this economic crippling was a side effect of the boycott, how then is ending the boycott advantageous? How does a profitable KFC help animals? The only thing that seems clear here is that KFC in Canada is so genuinely concerned about animal welfare that it will continue to sell the flesh of dead chickens to consumers to make money.

From the content of the article, I believe many consumers will conclude that

1. Killing and eating chickens is bad only if the animals are treated cruelly.
2. Now that welfare standards for chickens have been changed, it's OK to eat chicken at KFC.
3. PETA and KFC are in agreement about how animals should be treated.

I fully support the idea that we treat chickens with care and respect. If they are going to be killed for food, of course it is better if they are killed without being tortured first. But until a company isn't killing chickens anymore, why on earth would a so-called animal rights organization lift its boycott of that company? How does an animal protection organization come to an agreement with an outfit whose sole reason for existence is to kill animals?

Here is more about the PETA-KFC boycott-ending agreement:

KFC Canada has committed to the following:

Purchase 100 percent of its chickens, through a phase-in plan, from suppliers that use controlled-atmosphere killing (CAK)—the least cruel form of poultry slaughter ever developed. This will prevent live-scalding, sadistic abuse by workers (since with CAK, workers never even touch live birds), broken bones, painful electric shocks, live throat slitting and other abuses. This is the first time any company has committed to a total phase in of CAK. What’s most remarkable is that currently, only ONE chicken slaughterhouse in Canada uses CAK, so this will require the industry as a whole to switch over the next few years.

Add a vegan fried “chicken” sandwich to the menu of about 65% of all the KFCs in Canada! (It’ll be in stores around July, and I hope all you Canadians will devour it.)

Improve its animal welfare audit criteria to reduce the number of broken bones and other injuries suffered by birds and send PETA the detailed results of all their audits every six months . . . from now until the end of time.

Urge its suppliers to adopt better farming practices, including improved lighting, lower stocking-density and ammonia levels, and a phase-out of growth-promoting drugs and breeding practices that painfully cripple chickens.

Form an animal welfare advisory panel and allow PETA to have a say in who is on it.

As it turns out, CAK does not take live chickens out of the hands of workers. The animals still have to be loaded into the CAK unit, even if that unit is brought to the chicken shed and the birds are not transported. There's no doubt that animals destined for KFC buckets are subjected to extremely painful treatment, inflicted by the hands of uncaring, rushed, and emotionally numbed workers who likely have no avenues to complain about their treatment on the job or the killing of animals that is their job. Although these horrors may be reduced if the birds are not slaughtered using a shackling method, it's far from the humane death PETA is claiming.

What about not being killed at all, though? What if PETA, instead of spending these past seven years in grueling negotiations with KFC, had promoted the opening of a vegan fast food chain or had talked not about killing animals "more humanely" but about doing the most humane thing that can be done, which is not killing them at all?

As for the "vegan fried chicken" menu item (at only a little over half of KFCs in the entire country), I find it hard to believe that mainstream customers will choose it. Why should they, when the real thing is, according to PETA, animal-welfare friendly? If PETA no longer has a problem with KFC, why should consumers? Worse, PETA is encouraging its supporters, who would hopefully be vegans, to give their money to an animal-killing enterprise and devour its products. Wouldn't it be better for vegans to patronize vegan restaurants? How does giving money to KFC, an animal-killing enterprise, help the cause of animal rights?

Here's the bottom line: KFC kills chickens to make money. It's in their interest to (1) keep killing chickens to make money, and (2) implement only the welfare standards and changes that are profitable for the company. Working this hard and this long with an animal-abusing enterprise when these outcomes are known (it's a simple matter of economics, and PETA's documents outline them!) makes absolutely no sense when there are vegan enterprises and messages to be promoted.

I no longer support these campaigns. I no longer support PETA. There are better ways to advocate for animal rights and show people that it's wrong to use animals for food no matter how they are treated.

This self-proclaimed victory for animals is nothing but spin for PETA and a loud cha-ching! at the register for Kentucky Fried Chicken.

FLEFF: March 31-April 6, 2008

I'm incredibly excited about the upcoming Finger Lakes Environmental Film Festival (FLEFF) in Ithaca, NY, from March 31 through April 6, 2008. One look at the film list will explain my excitement. Many great documentaries are available, some of them attended by the filmmakers who created them. There are film discussion panels, concerts, mini-courses, and other events as well. The festival is incredibly rich with facts, ideas, and fun, and it's great to see awareness being raised about so many important issues. There's certainly a risk of compassion fatigue, but that danger is what makes FLEFF such a fantastic event.

Last year was the first year I attended the festival, and I saw a great documentary called Frankensteer, which discussed aspects of the Canadian cattle industry, and the inspiring The Forest For The Trees, which covered the trial of Judi Bari's civil rights lawsuit against the FBI and Oakland Police to clear her name of accusations of carrying a bomb to an Earth First! logging protest. The bomb--which detonated and injured both Judi and a fellow activist Darryl Cherney--was planted by agents, who lied and fabricated evidence against Judi and Darryl. Another highlight last year was the paradigm-shifting Black Gold, a documentary about fair trade coffee and the plight of Ethiopian organic coffee growers. I learned a lot in this film, and it piqued my interest in subject areas--including World Bank/IMF issues and global trade inequalities (WTO, free trade)--that, before the film, I had not considered or understood in context. It was inspiring and sobering to sit in a crowded theater and see these issues on screen and in discussion and wonder about what I could do, as one person, against this tide of unfairness and oppression.

This year's lineup looks, again, to be quite thought-provoking. I'm planning to see at least half a dozen films on the Ithaca College campus as time and schedule allow. Also in the lineup are weekend films in the downtown indie theaters. I'm including The Price of Sugar, Counterfeiters, War/Dance, the much anticipated Taxi to the Dark Side, and maybe Summer Palace. I hope to blog about my experiences and reactions to these films and subsequent discussions. It's really going to be a great week!

No End in Sight: The American Occupation of Iraq

No End in Sight is an excellent film that examines the decision-making and policies of the Bush administration on the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. If you followed things closely after the war began and in the months after Bush's mission accomplished speech, you'll get to see and hear all of the maddening quotes and disgusting bravado of top Bush officials, including Bush himself and especially Rumsfeld. Such footage is spliced elegantly with historical information and commentary from other top officials who were charged with carrying out the reconstruction and planning for postwar Iraq. Many of these individuals were given no time to accomplish such a feat and repeatedly reference examples of their advice and experience being ignored and disregarded by Bush and his cronies, who forged ahead with an agenda based on inexperience and uninformed by the many documents and reports amassed by intelligence and Pentagon officials who tried to sound the warning about what could (and did) go wrong.

The film is serious and steady, a damning indictment leveled by those charged with its execution. I learned new information from this film and now understand better that the “insurgency” and other difficulties that we face in Iraq didn’t just happen. The stage was set by decisions made in a stubborn vacuum. The soundtrack, featuring original music from Peter Nashel, and the footage used in the film combine with the somber faces and words of those interviewed to conjure up feelings of frustration, sadness, and alarm. These emotions reach a fever pitch late in the film, and my eyes welled up near the end. So many lives touched, damaged, and taken. So many who yet will die. Despite the illegality of the invasion and its false pretenses, the United States may actually have had a chance to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis and do some good in that country, but any initial goodwill and willingness of the Iraqis to move with us in concert into this new chapter of their nation’s history was squandered by Bush’s arrogance.

The tone of this film is excellent, and the delivery of its message and information is superb. I recommend it.

No End in Sight: The American Occupation of Iraq (2007)
Directed by Charles Ferguson

The Injustice System in America

The chance to see The Injustice System in America came at a perfect time for me given recent events I've attended and the academic areas in which I have a strong interest. With commentary from legal scholars, public defenders, law enforcement insiders, and social policy experts, the film brings together the many threads of bias in the U.S. criminal justice system and presents a picture of inequality and injustice that has kept taxpayer money flowing into the prison industrial complex.

Beginning with cries for a crackdown on civil rights protesters and continuing with the war on drugs, targeted law enforcement in communities of color is intensifying. Combined with legislation and sentencing practices that unfairly single out racial minorities of lower socioeconomic status, racialized social control has resulted in the mass incarceration of minorities in percentages that do not reflect those in the general population. Political agendas and lobbying pressure from the prison industry has resulted in lopsided spending on prisons while funding for education and other public services (the institutions that have the best chance of reducing crime and addiction) languishes. Individuals emerge from the prison system with few resources and even fewer options and, in many states, disenfranchised as well.

Statistics, trends, and direct observation provide more than enough evidence to support the premise of the film--that our current system is both unfair and unequal. It is an injustice system, perpetuated by the state and corporations that benefit from well-populated prisons. But is it just the state that is responsible? What obligations do we have as citizens who are aware of and may even benefit from this system of oppression? We have no choice but to acknowledge, oppose, and confront it, even if our communities are free of the police brutality that occurs routinely elsewhere.

I've been speaking to my classmates and coworkers about this issue ever since I saw the film. As someone who is working in addiction treatment, this issue may be very present in my day-to-day learning and work in the field. We must work with clients within the system, no matter how unjust. But what can be done to change that system and restore the equality that has been absent for decades? In some ways, we need simply to begin talking to each other. Encourage people to think about this issue, to read about it, to see this film, to acknowledge the consequences of perpetuating a system of inequality and racism. Our communities and our society as a whole are already experiencing the devastating effects of injustice as money drains away from schools, libraries, after school and job training programs, and other institutions that are effective antidotes to the problems that an expensive prison system will never solve.

We need a sea change in attitude, a unified voice that states, again simply, that this continued prejudice and inequality is unacceptable and will not be tolerated by caring citizens. We cannot afford to ignore it any longer. I encourage you to see this film. While not the most polished with respect to camera and sound work and editing, its message comes through loud and clear, and the more people with whom it can resonate, the closer we will be to creating a system that gives justice to all. It's not enough for us just to reject racism and prejudice; we must be agents for change through word and action.

The Injustice System in America (2007)
Directed by Cary Silberman

Privilege & community

This past weekend in Philadelphia I had the privilege to attend a presentation and discussion led by Joaquin Cienfuegos of Cop Watch LA, a grassroots organization that monitors the police in Los Angeles. Cop Watch chapters raise awareness about police harassment, brutality, and murder in cities across the United States. They are also involved in community outreach, education, and assistance.

The talk and discussion were thought-provoking for several reasons. I was reminded (and inspired) once again by how much can be accomplished by an organized group of citizens with dedication, persistence, and simple tools like video cameras. Aside from documenting brutality, members of the organization have stopped police harassment and likely prevented further misbehavior by police simply by being present at places where police are "at work." These activists work in the communities in which they live, educating people about their rights when dealing with the police and about how to end oppression and create security within their neighborhoods without relying on the police. Their purpose is very much to reclaim autonomy for citizens and secure liberty where the state has taken them away.

Sitting in the meeting room and hearing commentary from the speaker as well as from community activists in Philadelphia brought to my mind the stark differences between my life as a white female and the lives of others. I thought of my time in a diverse neighborhood in West Utica, where my calls to the police were always answered promptly while others often waited and waited. On more than one occasion police treated me differently than they treated individuals of other ethnicities who lived on the streets of my neighborhood. I overheard and was disturbed by racist behavior on the part of some of the citizens in that neighborhood as well.

Although I tried earnestly to "get involved" in my community and work with my neighbors to improve living conditions and end inequality in West Utica, I did not have a full picture of just how difficult police terrorism and other neighborhood issues (gentrification) are for some citizens. The discussion this past weekend helped me connect some of those dots and widened my perspective. Although it is heartening to sit in a big circle and watch citizens of all ethnicities discuss problems, vent frustrations, recount personal stories, and brainstorm solutions, it is disheartening to me to see how much racism and hatred are still alive, well, and thriving in the places where we live. I am privileged in many ways, and even if I recognize and acknowledge it as unfair, I still benefit from it.

It is not enough to eradicate racism and other -isms from our personal thoughts and actions. What is needed is an acknowledgment of what has happened and what is happening in our communities and a re-dedication to unify ourselves against the forces that create the divides in the first place and against the corruption that depends on the persistence of division. No community is immune to the effects of complacency and the destructive force of capitalism and its agents.

Iraq in Fragments

I love documentaries, and I want to make a point of blogging about them when I see them. Iraq in Fragments was my first documentary for 2008, and it was presented by Back to Democracy, a local group of progressive grassroots activists. The award-winning film presents three postwar Iraq perspectives, shown through the eyes of three ordinary Iraqis and through stunning scenes of both city and countryside.

Everyday life in Iraq goes on despite the devastation of the invasion, but I was struck by the sense of tension that seems to fill the streets, homes, and businesses. Not a tension between the people in the film, but a general feeling of uneasiness, perhaps brought about by the presence of soldiers and military vehicles in the streets, weapons drawn and ready. Or perhaps it was the frequent talk of change, struggle, and anger that many in the film expressed in their daily conversation, activities, and worship.

I realized as I watched how horrible it must be to live in a place where tomorrows are as uncertain as todays are difficult. One man in the film said, "today is better than tomorrow." Most Americans live in such comfort and luxury compared to the lives we've helped create for Iraqis. The everyday things we take for granted--education, leisure time, material goods, security--are luxuries in Iraq, where daily needs aren't always easy to fill and the future is very much an uncertainty. Politically, the country seems to be in a kind of infancy, with three groups each wanting something different. Some hope that everyone can work together; others want to see their point of view predominate. Raised voices, frustration, anger, hopes, and grudges all seem to be part of the dialog. At times, I felt that getting a government in place that would be just and fair to all Iraqis would be nearly impossible.

In nearly every scene, young boys mingled with the men (there were only a handful of women shown), listening intently to their words and watching everything that went on. Violent words and actions, funerals, religious services and rallies, and outright death--all of these took place before the eyes of children. What will become of them? What will the future look like when it emerges from a present painted with violence and despair? In the faces of the boys in the film were the features of men. Their expressions were thoughtful beyond their years. What must they think, never knowing peace in their lifetimes? I have not known peace in my lifetime either in some respects, but never has war come to my state, to my city, to my neighborhood, to my home. Never have I had to flee gunfire or look to the sky with alarm as a military helicopter passes over. Never have I had to wonder about the fate of my father or other relatives or go to work instead of school to support my mother and grandmother. No one should need to do this, and I am ashamed that the actions of my government have made that a reality for so many.

Even in translation, some of the thoughts and expressions of the people in the film were so moving. Dreams of beautiful places, peaceful futures, better lives, and a country to call home. Human desires that we all share. Many in Iraq are united by hatred against each other and against Americans. Yet the images of devastation, sadness, and unrest were interrupted time and again by scenes of laughter and smiles. The scene that showed young Kurds in a snowball fight made me laugh and smile, too. Whatever our differences, we are the same in these emotions. Smiles, laughter, and tears bring us together as human beings. That human element is the part of this film that stood out for me along with the feelings of despair, sadness, and bewilderment about what war has wrought.

There is much I need to learn about the history of the Middle East and the conflicts that rage in that region and in which my country is very much involved. Yet even without knowing all of that, I feel a connection to the people of those countries. I may not understand their religious fervor, but I feel what many of them feel in response to what happens in their lives. I hope that peace will arrive for all of us somehow, not through a corporate democracy or at the end of a gun but through a genuine desire for equality and justice for all.

Iraq in Fragments (2006)
Directed by James Longley

Vegan Thanksgiving: 11 years in the making

I was unexpectedly kept in the Finger Lakes for Thanksgiving this year when I would ordinarily be traveling to be with family, so after 11 years of being an ethical vegan, I had an opportunity to have a truly vegan Thanksgiving dinner. Animals are brutalized every day of every year for food throughout the world, and Thanksgiving is no worse than any other day when it comes to their suffering. But on a day when the highlight is the dead body of a sentient being, and after years of being forced to consume a hastily prepared vegan alternative (or nothing at all) in its presence, it's hard not to long for a holiday that celebrates life and does not center on the death of these complex and wonderful creatures.

For me, that day had arrived.

I had invited a good friend over, and we had decided ahead of time that she'd be bringing a soup, a vegetable, and a dessert. My contribution was going to be garlic mashed potatoes, but I awoke feeling energetic and excited, so I decided to do a bit more. I roasted garlic, cooked down two organic pie pumpkins that had been weighing on my conscience for weeks (I dislike wasting food), and gathered ingredients from refrigerator and pantry.

The result was a hot and comforting meal of squash soup, shepherd's pie with gravy, asparagus, biscuits, chocolate pie, and pumpkin pie, all vegan and all delicious. A glass of Finger Lakes wine and delightful conversation pulled it all together. We spent a brief but enjoyable evening over these simple and satisfying foods, never feeling deprived, and instead being more fulfilled because of the individuals that we spare, on Thanksgiving and every day, by being vegan.

It was a beautiful day to cherish, snow flurries and all. And I am so thankful for all of the beings, two-footed and four-footed, who showed me the things that opened my eyes to this gentle and peaceful way of living.

Shepherd's Pie (serves 4)

1 package TVP (Smart Ground or the like)
1 onion, diced
1 large carrot, diced
1 clove garlic, minced
1 can cream style corn
1 Tbsp (or to taste) vegan Worcestershire sauce (no anchovies)
5-6 Yukon gold potatoes, cooked and mashed with vegan margarine and roasted garlic
Salt and pepper
Olive oil

Preheat oven to 350 degrees. In a large skillet, heat the olive oil over medium heat. Saute the onion, carrots, and garlic until tender. Add TVP and mix. Season with salt and pepper and vegan Worcestershire sauce to taste. Place TVP mixture in the bottom of a square casserole dish. Spread the creamed corn over the mixture, and top with the mashed potatoes. Bake for 30 minutes until the ingredients are heated through and the potatoes are lightly browned. Serve hot with a side of gravy if desired.