More on Meat Eating

There is an interesting editorial in the New York Times that was coincidentally published with perfect timing for our recent posts on eating meat, eating the meat we know and animal welfare. A Farm Boy Reflects, by Nicholas D. Kristof is a personal and moving reflection that is well worth the read. His follow-up blog continues the discussion with commentary.

As Mr. Kristof recognizes, Americans are becoming increasingly sensitive to the welfare of animals, whether they are pets, zoo animals, endangered species, or farm animals. Yet, the industrialization of animal agriculture relies on a system in which animals are treated with less individual sensitivity, and in some instances, cruelty. Indeed, the industrialization model is dependent upon the kind of mass production of uniform products that likens farm animals to the "widgets" produced in other manufacturing processes.

These trends are on a crash course.

A game of chicken? Or a step back to consider what we are doing and how we are doing it. Consider Matthew Scully's comments from his book Dominion.

The care of animals brings with it often complicated problems of economics, ecology, and science. . . . Animals are more than ever a test of our character, of mankind's capacity for empathy and for decent, honorable conduct and faithful stewardship. We are called to treat them with kindness, not because they have rights or power or some claim to equality, but in a sense because they don't; because they all stand unequal and powerless before us. . . . Whenever we humans enter their world, from our farms to the local animal shelter to the African savanna, we enter as lords of the earth bearing strange powers of terror and mercy alike.

Rice-a-Roni: Who Could Have Known?

The origin of recipes can be a fascinating case study. In case you missed it, on this morning's National Public Radio broadcast of Morning Edition, there was a delightful story about the origin of one of the first boxed food products available to the hurried cook, Rice-a-Roni. Now, for those of you who thumb your noses at such packaged and processed products, I urge you to read on. And, do listen to the story.

It turns out that it is based on the Armenian Pilaf recipe made by Mrs. Captanian, an Armenian immigrant with an amazing and tragic life story and adapted by a young Canadian-Italian family who lived with her. As NPR reports, this story is about "the convergence of a Canadian immigrant bride, an Italian-American pasta family, and a survivor of the Armenian genocide – all of which led to the creation of "The San Francisco Treat."

Once again, food serves to unite people and to form the basis for lasting memories. Take a minute to listen to the story. It is a delight. There is also a website to accompany the story, complete with photos, additional information, and yes, the Rice-a-Roni theme song.

Note: This story is part of the Kitchen Sisters Hidden Kitchens series. It is an award-winning series that explores "the world of street-corner cooking, below-the radar, unexpected,hidden kitchens, legendary meals and eating traditions -- how communities come together through food."

Thoughts on Bunny

Professor Chen raises some intriging issues in his post, Bunny: It's Whats for Dinner. First, there is the impact of knowing what, and sometimes, who you are eating. The second issue, not to be overlooked but which I shall save for a later comment, is the serious issue of animal welfare and humane slaughter.

Except for the hunter who with honesty of purpose kills and eats his or her game, it seems that most people would rather distance themselves from any real understanding of the fact that the meat they are consuming was in fact the flesh of a living being. And, who can blame them? Scientific research continues to produce discoveries that animals have more cognition, more understanding, and more emotion that we ever thought possible. The closer they seem to us (and we to them), the more uncomfortable it seems to eat them.

When I grew up in rural Washington County, Minnesota many of my peers participated in 4-H projects in which they raised a young farm animal from birth, training it, bathing it, grooming it and completely befriending it, after which they "showed it" at the county fair and then watched it (most often through many tears) sold at auction for meat. I wanted no part of that desensitizing experience. After bottle feeding and raising "Tiger," an orphan lamb as a child, the thought of eating "leg of lamb" seems closer to a Hannibal Lecter line than a delicacy. Leg of lamb?? Think about it. At least they could call it something else . . . even hamburger is not called ground cow.

But, what has happened to the 4-H projects I recall? This summer, my local paper reported "Washington County Fair Shows Moving Toward Pets And Away From Farm Animals." There are many factors at work - PETA calls it "progressive" and the University of Minnesota describes it as a way "to reach out to nonfarm kids." Either way, participation is up, with horses and dogs taking the lead. How have the kids reacted?

Raising animals to kill? Eeewwww.

"I am not a vegetarian or anything," said Kelsey Binder, 18, of Afton, who will be entering horses and a dog into obedience and agility contests. "But I don't think I could eat my own animal."

Instead, she said, her livestock-raising friends swap the meat of their animals with other friends, to avoid eating the animal they raised. She said one girl raises ducks for the fair — they are killed and eaten by her father only when she leaves town.

What to make of all this? Since we now eat meat because we enjoy it rather than because we need it, clearly people can chose what meat to eat and even whether to eat meat at all. How Americans make that choice in the future may produce some interesting results.

Bunny: It's what's for dinner

Rabbit for dinner? The thought either delights or disgusts. From the Washington Post:

Chefs love rabbit. Some diners, especially the 2.3 million Americans who keep rabbits as pets, don't. And therein lies a potential for growing controversy. "In Europe, you eat rabbit everywhere. In America, it has been an elite meat," says Bob D. Whitman, a rabbit breeder . . . . "A lot of Americans have Easter Bunny syndrome." . . .

Those for and against rabbits-for-dinner divide neatly into two camps, and they all call themselves rabbit lovers. On one side are chefs and omnivores who see rabbit as a flavorful, healthful and interesting alternative to the omnipresent chicken. "It's a great option because it's lean, but when it's braised it's really tender," says chef Cathal Armstrong . . . .

Among meats, rabbit is a healthful choice. Agriculture Department statistics show that rabbit meat is lower in saturated fat than beef and pork and slightly lower in cholesterol than chicken. The breeds used for meat (commonly California, New Zealand or a cross of the two) are almost twice the size of typical pet rabbits. . . .

Equally passionate are those who prefer to keep rabbit off the plate. Based on The Post's reader mail, an admittedly unscientific sampling, it looks as if rabbit has replaced veal as the most offensive meat. A small photo of fried rabbit legs in a review of Bebo Trattoria in Crystal City prompted a deluge of letters last year . . . . "Ethically, there is no difference between rabbits and other meats, but psychologically there is," [said Gary Loewenthal, a vegan who keeps a pet rabbit]. He added that he boycotts any restaurant that serves rabbit.

More recently, Tina Klugman of Overland Park, Kan., wrote in to request that newspaper critics be forbidden to write about rabbit dishes. Reached by e-mail, the 30-year-old Klugman, who says she is not a vegetarian or "any kind of animal rights activist," said she sees rabbits as companion animals, not food: "I do think it's disgusting to eat bunny, especially after learning about their personalities. They are super-intelligent animals."

In particular, Klugman is bothered by the fact that the USDA classifies rabbits as poultry. As such, they are not subject to the rules of the federal Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, which is designed to protect farm animals from unnecessary suffering. According to the Humane Society of the United States, most rabbit slaughters do not take place in federally inspected plants. "There is virtually no regulation for rabbits to prevent the worst abuses," says Erin Williams, a spokeswoman for the Humane Society's campaign against factory farming. . . .

"It's not the same as a pet bunny," [says chef Cathal Armstrong]. "You'll get hate mail. People get freaked out that we're serving Thumper."

Annabelle

Within the expressive idiom of American folk music, is there a more compelling example of literary naturalism than Gillian Welch's 1996 ballad, Annabelle  (on Revival)?

In previous blog posts, in Jurisdynamics and on MoneyLaw, I've come close to answering the question. Now I wish to say, emphatically, in this forum and on Danzig U.S.A., that Annabelle might well be the perfectly composed song in the Southern folk tradition:

Gillian Welch, Annabelle , Revival (1996) (live on YouTube)

Gillian Welch, Annabelle , Revival (1996)

We lease twenty acres and one ginny mule
From the Alabama trust
For half of the cotton and a third of the corn
We get a handful of dust

We cannot have all things to please us
No matter how we try
Until we've all gone to Jesus
We can only wonder why

I had a daughter, called her Annabelle
She's the apple of my eye
Tried to give her something like I never had
Didn't ever want to ever hear her cry

We cannot have all things to please us
No matter how we try
Until we've all gone to Jesus
We can only wonder why

When I'm dead and buried
I'll take a hard life of tears
From every day I've ever known
Anna's in the churchyard she got no life at all
She only got these words on a stone

We cannot have all things to please us
No matter how we try
Until we've all gone to Jesus
We can only wonder why

Speculation and Manipulation, Redux

So the airlines have gotten together to Stop Oil Speculation (SOS). How do I know? Both Northwest Airlines and United Airlines sent me an e-mail with an open letter signed by twelve airlines. They must be serious about this. I have made my thoughts on speculation and manipulation known here and here, and the airlines’ arguments are not changing my mind.

The language used on the SOS web site sounds more like “here’s why you should pay me $15 per checked bag and not complain about it even though I did not hedge my fuel costs appropriately” or "when I asked for deregulation I didn't really mean it," rather than a legitimate complaint. The airlines claim, “Every time you buy products such as food or gas, you are impacted by unregulated, secretive and often foreign commodities futures markets.” They even dropped in an "Enron" reference later, just to make sure you know the markets are evil. This letter is precursor to a request for another bailout if you ask me.

“Unregulated” and “secretive” sounds an awful lot like how airlines price their flights. Ever try to get a deal on a flight out of a small market like Grand Forks, North Dakota, or a major hub like Minneapolis? Good luck. And don’t think the airline is going to tell you when you should buy to get the cheapest fare or how they price their flights.

And don't get me started on why I think they included the “foreign” markets comment.

When it comes to airlines, I am not very sympathetic to their financial problems. CNN Money notes that Southwest Airlines, which also signed the letter, "hedged 70% of its fuel costs at $51 a barrel. As a result of its smart bets in futures markets, the discount airline is paying only about $2 a gallon for its jet fuel." Remind me again which airline is profitable. Right, it is Southwest. Of course, they signed the letter, too, lest they be left out of any government assistance for high-fuel costs.

The worst part of all of this is that large airlines have the ability to work in this kind of market. Southwest showed how to make it work. Farmers, on the other hand, who are seeing similar problems, potentially based on new market speculation, have seen a change in the way the market itself works, as a New York Times article explained in April: "Farmers used to leave the market-watching to traders who work for big grain elevator companies. But with some of those companies now refusing to buy crops in advance because hedging has become so expensive and uncertain, farmers have to follow and trade in those markets themselves."


I don't think the time is right for the government to intervene in either market, but if I were setting the priorities, my first efforts would be to help those who have tried to hedge but no longer have the resources (farmers), as opposed to those who had the chance to hedge and decided not to (airlines). The real speculators here were the airlines. It's just that most of them got it wrong.

Ain’t No Reason Things Are This Way

The Sunday New York Times included an article, American Energy Policy, Asleep at the Spigot. The article outlines high oil prices and what was done (and not done) since the 1970s to reduce our oil consumption: “Over the last 25 years, opportunities to head off the current crisis were ignored, missed or deliberately blocked, according to analysts, politicians and veterans of the oil and automobile industries.” In addition, biofuels are now inextricably intertwined with food and oil prices—the World Bank apparently says biofuels have raised food prices by 75%.

It’s time for long-ranging and forward-thinking policies for both food and fuel. And yet, in this election year, we instead hear a lot of talk about attempts to lower prices at the pump as soon as possible. As such, rather than instituting long-range plans, and making hard decisions, political leaders are seeking policies to extend the status quo. That would be another in a long series of mistakes.

With oil and food prices outpacing inflation and causing hardship both here and abroad, U.S. policy is hard to explain.

There ain’t no reason things are this way
It's how they always been and they intend to stay
I can't explain why we live this way,
We do it everyday.

New Mexico bans cockfighting

Excerpts from Adam B. Ellick, A Ban on Cockfighting, but the Tradition Lives On, N.Y. Times, July 6, 2008:

Last year, New Mexico became the 49th state to make cockfighting illegal. . . . The state has devoted vast resources to ending the sport, but with only one misdemeanor conviction thus far, it continues unabated in hidden venues, cockfighters and law enforcement officials say. . . .

“It seems they’re always one step ahead of us,” said Robyn Gojkovich, who in May became the state’s first full-time animal control investigator.

Ed Lowry, 51, a paunchy rooster breeder from Chaparral, agreed.

“They ain’t shut nothing down,” said Mr. Lowry, who has not been charged, even though his truck and computers were seized in [a] raid.

Mr. Lowry, who still possesses his prized bloodlines, said he constantly turns down invitations to fight. As a director of the New Mexico Gamefowl Association, a nonprofit cockfighting advocacy group, he has taken up fighting in the courts, where appeals claiming tribal, religious and cultural sovereignty have failed to win exemptions from the ban.

“A gamecock shows me what an American should be like,” he said. “You defend to the death.” . . .

But law enforcement officials are not giving up. They insist their aggressive operations — the raids, the full-time investigator, a special cockfighting task force — are sending a message in a war of attrition.

Nationally, though, it appears that animal rights advocates are winning that war, and they have been helped by a high-profile case. The conviction of the football star Michael Vick in a dogfighting operation in 2007 has pushed animal cruelty cases to the fore. . . .

“You can’t go on the national stage and have people find out you have no problem with a bloody sport,” said Sheriff Darren White of Bernalillo County, where officers issued citations for two cockfighting misdemeanors in a raid on June 21.

Mr. Richardson’s office said he would not be available to discuss the issue.

Sheriff White, a Republican who is running for Congress, said the ban has transformed public opinion on animal cruelty issues. Animal rights advocates agree.

“New Mexico is on the verge of having a modern culture,” said Heather Ferguson, the legislative director for Animal Protection of New Mexico, an animal-rights lobbying group. Ms. Ferguson said a newly established animal cruelty hot line was receiving about 90 calls every two weeks. . . .

Ms. Ferguson said she would like to see even more legal action on the issue. She is seeking $200,000 in additional state money to finance positions like a full-time prosecutor for animal cruelty cases. In addition, she is working to make cockfighting a felony in New Mexico. Over the next year, Animal Protection of New Mexico will lobby for about $1.1 million for three new animal custody facilities that would be completed by 2010.

For 16 years, Richard and Louisa Lopez operated a 310-seat cockfighting arena at their farm in Luis Lopez, N.M. The $30,000 they earned annually from the operation helped subsidize their farm expenses, and send their children to college. Last month, they used the arena for their family reunion and a baby shower.

“We don’t have money to buy diesel sometimes,” Mr. Lopez said. “And this is the place that kept my farm going.”

In January, the courts dismissed a suit by the New Mexico Gamefowl Association claiming economic devastation. Ms. Gojkovich, the animal control investigator, was hardly sympathetic.

“You need to go find a job at Wal-Mart,” she said.