Meatless Mondays

Before I get started, I had a link from Feedstuffs Foodlink about the addition in a lot of groceries of tags to help better explain important nutrition info. How long ago was it that we last had simplistic nutrition facts listed as "all you needed to know?". Then we decided over the years that we needed more and more details to fully develop exactly what diet was perfect? But here we are again talking about highlighting the important facts to better assist consumers. If we hadn't confused people in the first place with a flood of information, then we wouldn't need to simplify it now. I'm not saying all the details on a label aren't important - they are - but I think that those details became an inaccurate marketing ploy by food processing companies to sell health foods.

I could just link you to this article and end it the meatless Monday conversation at that, but I won't. Read the article; if you aren't satisfied then that this is a stupid idea, then you can read on through my post. Otherwise, don't waste your time because mine is just a rant on an old topic.

When I was at MSU, Gov. Granholm introduced the Meatless Monday for Michigan, encouraged by animal rights activists into believing that this would help the environment and the animals and would balance her appearance to the general public. But supporting the crazies who have no regard for property rights and little tolerance for education and truth about what happens on livestock farms turned out to raise a lot more stink than she expected, especially since she also spent so much time building up the local food produced in Michigan (meat included) and then encouraged people not to eat it for one day a week.

There's nothing actually wrong with eating meat every day of the week. From a health perspective, meat products provide highly digestible and utilizable nutrients that are otherwise hard to access. Meat is also a cheap product, not because of government subsidies, but because of American ingenuity in production of food over the decades. We are spoiled by this highly available, relatively inexpensive protein and vitamin/mineral product, but instead there are people who would rather spend more money on less beneficial foods which even imitate the real thing. Why on earth would you buy a vegan burger unless you actually wanted to consume meat? It's like vegan bacon - really? You want bacon (specifically a meat product) but you don't want to feel guilty about it. So instead you deprive it of its intended nutritive value, shove it full of super-processed vegetables (which most vegans also claim to hate) and then eat it like it's the real thing. Folks, all going meatless does is deprive you of good, wholesome nutrition and a great eating experience. Are there people who need less meat consumption due to severe health concerns, yes, but they often didn't get in that situation because of what they ate but rather how much they ate. Reduced intake would solve nearly everyone's problems if people just finally got honest about how much they're eating.

Of course, the meatless movement starts on just one day a week, but their end goal is meatless 365/24/7 (plus the occasional leap year). What drives this? None other but the same guilt and poor education which drives everything else. If you read it on the internet, then most people are willing to believe it's true. Rational thought no longer takes the time to evaluate facts critically, which is how CNN makes so much money reporting nothing but speculation all day long. You shouldn't let speculation on an animal's care drive your actions.

For example, this woman posted a blog about visiting an animal sanctuary. She loved it and plans to volunteer there, because she especially loved the pigs who have been saved from an unhealthy lifestyle and now laze around at a healthy size of over 1000 lbs.???? If you saw your uncle sitting on the couch, drinking a beer and watching the Packers, with a gut over the belt line and a plate full of food, would he at that point be rescued or need rescued from a healthy lifestyle? And doesn't a healthy animal lifestyle also require the breeding aspect as well? But these animals can't experience mating because the shelter realizes the truth - that without an animal food industry, there is no purpose to the pigs existence at all. And being domesticated, they can be none other than a nuisance until they die. Instead, they are locked up in a useless lifestyle, getting fat and watching birds pass until they finally die out. So much for a free, healthier lifestyle.

IACUC and Animal Research

This week marks the submission of my IACUC proposal which has been a much larger endeavor than I had originally supposed. For those of you who don't know, IACUC is an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and every research institution has one of these committees. The main purpose of the committee is to oversee research that deals with animals and ensure the animals' well-being by reviewing the protocols and making sure that the animals will be well cared far, that the research has a practical use in today's society, that animals will not be wasted needlessly in this research and that there isn't some crazy professor doing horrendous things to animals in the name of science.

What the IACUC committee is looking for is to see for starters that the researcher is and will be providing adequate daily care and alleviation of pain and illness for the duration of the project. Even if animals will die at the end of a project there is no justification for failing to provide adequate care to them before then. The IACUC committee is also checking to see if this research is applicable to mankind. How will the research benefit us as humans and what benefits does it have for animals? They also want to know if similar research has been done before. If similar research has been done before, how will this project be different? Science has a checkered past with unnecessary duplication of projects or projects that are duplicated in larger numbers just to find statistical significance so the committee wants to make sure that duplicate projects are limited and the first projects in new areas have statistical value.

All of these criteria have a specific goal of reducing research impact on animals and which focus on the 3 R's of research today: Replacement, Refinement and Reduction. Over time as we as a society have become more concerned about the experiences and plight of animals in research, the 3 R's evolved to have a central significance to responsible animal research. Each one has a specific focus and all 3 provide a cohesive body of work with which to judge the value of a research project and its impact on animal well-being. Ultimately we use the 3 R's to justify a project and its use of animals in combination with the project's assumed ultimate benefit to both animals and humans globally. Here's my understanding of the 3 R's in my own life and my obligation during research.

Replacement references the substitution of "lesser" animals, animal models or other laboratory analysis for life animals wherever possible. Refinement refers to procedures and using the best and least invasive procedures for data collection. Reduction is more of a statistical comment. It can refer to not repeating experiments needlessly as well as designing experiments in a way to use as few animals as possible so as to eliminate needless inclusion of animals in an experiment. This also helps the researchers themselves in many cases as it helps to reduce the budget for a project. Every animal fed and cared for through a project adds a cost to the project.

Animal research has provided many great benefits to humans over time, but it has also had great benefit for the animals studied as we gain a better understanding of them and can improve the care we provide to them. Ending animal research in today's society would be unreasonable and uncaring towards human patients who suffer worldwide today and even though this is something advocated by animal rights groups, we owe it to our fellow human beings to continue animal research to search for the cures to diseases from which they suffer. While I advocate caution among research projects towards the care of animals, the truth of the matter is that animal research benefits people everywhere in concerns such as increasing human food production, curing diseases, better understanding of biology and a greater appreciation to the diversity around us and I support this with all I am. As an animal scientist I am committed to providing appropriate care to the animals in my project and I am hopeful that my project can have a positive impact on our understanding of animal behavior and how we can provide good care to food producing animals while not sacrificing our ability to feed so many people with such few resources.

Vicious

I searched long and hard, deep within for a one-word title to cover the recent Mercy for Animals video release. This video has been festering in my mind and buzzing in conversation for the last week and for good reason. What you see on the video (which I will not include here, you can Google it yourself) is vile and disgraceful for cattle farmers everywhere. But the story doesn't end there.

Vicious is a word that we use to describe dangerous or sick animals, heart-breakers that we meet at the bar and is also an appropriate description of Mercy for Animals. Credit this organization for always fighting for animal rights like a dog in a corner, yet they're also always on the offensive. They are viciously dishonest as well and based on the lies and falsification of previous movies released (which drives some states' new legislation to prosecute "undercover filmers"), I doubt the honesty behind the depiction of cruelty at the farm. There are thousands of animals on the farm, and over a month there are only 3 minutes of video. Of these 3 minutes, the actual headliner of calves being beat in the head only consisted of a half-dozen calves, our of thousands. Three minutes of video footage for a month of investigation.

But in this day in age, it's not good enough to be right and a good animal caretaker almost all of the time. Almost only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades; it's not enough to have great employees except one who slips up and has anger issues or fails to follow instructions. And that's fine. With food as cheap as people are used to having it, they can afford to get picky and in this day and age, mistakes like what happened at E6 are inexcusable; we've come a long way and it's good of consumers to encourage farmers to tighten their own ranks and to police those who aren't quite as committed to ensuring their employees follow regulations and care standards that are already in place on farms and in this case just weren't followed.

Mercy for Animals goes much further than just helping to make sure that animals are properly cared for and that mistakes are reported. The French defined "vicious" just a little bit different when I was over there, referring to it as more "perverted". I stipulate that this is the true definition of Mercy for Animals. I think it's perverted that they are willing to infiltrate farms, deny care and consideration to animals and even partake in abuse themselves in an effort to convince America to go vegan. It's perverted to be encouraging farm workers to abuse animals and to rig video footage in an effort to convict someone for animal abuse. It's perverted that they get away with this farce unpunished and that so many people blindly accept their lies as the truth.

I can't tell you often enough that farmers care about their livestock and they are more infuriated by this poor care in their fellow farmers than the public can ever be. They fight an uphill battle every day against the one or two bad apples in the crowd, in addition to activists who are willing to personally abuse animals in order to get national attention (within minutes of my posting this, their searches will have already logged me as one more person to have talked online about this - check out socialmention.com), and in addition to the hard work farmers put in every day to feed you safely. They will keep producing wholesome food and will keep honestly caring for their animals in the best ways that personal experience and science have shown them to do. Life's about choices. You can believe the activists who abuse animals and blame it on other people, or you can believe the farmers who have been doing this for more generations than the stock market has been in existence and who genuinely care about the animals in their possession - the choice is all yours.

Mitch and Emotional Arguments

My thanks as always to MSU students and one of my favorites this time for sharing an article with from the State News. A couple of years ago you could've fooled me into thinking that the State News had some semblance of objectivity, but their position on the highly controversial issue of animal rights the past couple years has made it clear that they care for nothing except propagating their own liberal viewpoints and forcing it on the students at MSU. If I was an alumni subscriber, I'd be pretty disappointed in the impression they're making on the general public; it's even gotten worse than the OSU Lantern.

Well, this latest argument from Mitch is so highly charged with emotion and non-factual statements that I finally lost my cool and started typing up a response:

"Mitch, your uninformed, emotional arguments prove exactly why it's so far taken you 5 years to graduate with a bachelors' degree. Glad to see you learned how to photoshop masculinity into your submission picture. If only people knew you were about 4 feet tall and looked more like an enormous squirrel than a college student..."

Yeah, cross that out. This is when I realized I needed to scratch out and start over:

"Mitch (and friends), you probably don't remember your rude treatment of me a couple of years ago at a PETA2 rally, but it seems the only thing that's changed is finally you found a masculine picture to fool the papers. Your attitude towards animal agriculture is a cover up for the fact that you are shamefully unable to accept the facts in this world. There is life, and there is death. University of Michigan has even found that plants have feelings, so I hope in your quest for preservation of all sensitive beings you finally figure out your only option to avoid the death of living, feeling beings is starvation. Good luck with that."

Scratch out again. Geez this guy has me fired up. Well, that's what they try to do to you. They get you all fired up, ruffle your feathers, and once you're angry you spout off something stuttery, unintelligent, then you look like an angry idiot and give farmers everywhere a bad reputation. That's the idea folks and this provocation works. It gets us to say the wrong things at the wrong times and then they misquote you over and over again until you wish you'd never cared.

So I erased again, and here's where we stand:

"Mitch, and friends,

"The incoherency in your argument shames animal rights groups worldwide. Rather, you obviously can't make up your mind whether you're speaking on vivisection, or if you want to go on a diatribe against animal agriculture and MSU Animal Science students (your more common MO). Most of the animal research you cited in your opening isn't even linked to Anthony Hall or the Animal Science Department. Despite your claims of what is in Anthony Hall, you still seem to have no clue what really happens there at all. The same is true of your ignorant statements about mink and Dr. Bursian but others have already elaborated that in previous comments. What is true is that the mink released by your fellow activists suffered horribly from the "freedom" forced upon them during an illegal mass release. Would you like to comment on that incident at all?

"Citing Carol Adams adds no strength to your argument in the least. She demeans women everywhere by even equating the women's rights movement with animal rights. Capable of their own cognition and responsible for their actions, women bravely campaigned for many decades in a persistent effort to receive equal consideration for jobs, legal rights and representation. The women's rights movement in the US is decades old and while there are still places in the world where women suffer inexplicable discrimination, it is certainly not beneath the gaze of the Euro-American male. Truth is that you used this article as just one more opportunity to agitate people against animal agriculture and the faculty/students who research in this field.

"As a former MSU student, I learned much beyond my own field of study or simple classes; among the life skills further developed in my undergraduate career was critical thinking - something your arguments lack. Open up your "arrogant eyes" a little and step back for the big picture. I think you'll find your "male gaze" has become a little clouded with denial of the truth. Life feeds life and recent reports indicate that plants feel pain and stress, and can detect relatives in the soil around them. You can either eat and survive, accepting that all life can serve a purpose through a well cared for life, or you can starve. The choice is all yours."

Have a nice day, y'all, and check out other great comments on that site as well.

Hopefully not Food for Thought

A couple of videos to mull over as the issue of animal care and how it is provided continues to be discussed and relevant in today's world.

In class today, one of the students brought up this man's crazy stunt of "living" with the lions for a month to raise money for his animal sanctuary. Besides the fact that his shelter actually doesn't provide sanctuary for the animals where they can function normally, his plan really just doesn't make any sense. Luckily, he still does have a place where he can hide to protect himself - if he makes it there.



In case you needed a reminder of why you shouldn't climb into a pen with animals, let alone carnivores, check out this video below.



Or of course, there's the puffer fish that somehow is believed to have killed a man. If I was the wife, I'd be wondering why he ate the poison, or of course, maybe she already knows.

It was interesting in class though that as we talked about deceptive arguments and the methods used by activists to sway the middle ground, many of the things we denounce animal rights groups for doing, we've done or are doing ourselves. And the excuse that they were first doesn't make it any better that we also try to manipulate people's opinions. I think that same observation is reflected in a lot of the change in agricultural media at this point as we return to focusing on what we do, and why we do it instead of finger pointing and saying who's wrong and why. It's not that we're being simple and stupid; we just need to be honest because that's what people want and need more than anything.