SOME HARD TRUTHS FOR ETHICAL VEGETARIANS INTRODUCTION Vegetarianism is a vital, healthy lifestyle, and is embraced by many people for many different reasons. This document is addressed to those vegetarians who avoid meat, and in some cases animal products in general, for reasons having to do with personal and/or environmental ethics. Animal rights and environmental organizations generally do a very good job of informing people of the positive aspects of vegetarianism, but they tend to neglect some important issues that are likely to make people realize that is virtually impossible to live a completely cruelty-free lifestyle. This is understandable; they want to encourage people to do what they perceive to be the right things, and some probably have political motives for omitting information. Nevertheless, we need to have some understanding of the whole picture, including both the good and bad, to make truly informed choices in our lives. What follows are what I believe to be the most important - and most neglected - facts that ethical vegetarians need to know. ANIMAL TESTING AND ANIMAL PRODUCTS Many of us make a genuine effort to both avoid products that contain ingredients derived from slaughtered animals, and to support the development of alternatives to the use of living animals in medical research. Most of us are unaware of the extent to which monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies, which are complex compounds produced by living immune systems, are used in common medical testing. HIV testing, pregnancy testing (including home pregnancy tests), feline leukemia tests done on companion animals, and many other tests that analyze blood or urine to detect specific antibodies contain these substances, usually but not always derived from mice or rabbits. The animals used to create these antibodies are killed, and their blood extracted, to provide them. Some monoclonal antibodies are produced via cell culture, but use cells that were originally derived from living animals, and generally utilize a culture medium that contains animal products (see below). Another area in which animals are routinely killed is the testing of medical equipment for "pyrogens", or fever-inducing agents. This means that sterile medical supplies, including IV tubing, are tested for safety using laboratory animals. Animals are also routinely used to test new prescription drugs, and to lot-test many over the counter drugs. These few examples are just that: examples, not a complete list. Ethical vegetarians should be aware that when they use standard medical facilities and tests, the chances are they are participating, however unwittingly or unwillingly, in a system that uses many of the practices that they oppose. Even emerging alternatives like cell culture often use animal products; cell culture very often uses calf or fetal calf serum in the growth medium. It remains up to the individual to decide whether or not they wish to simply accept these uses of animals as a necessary evil, work within the system to try to change it by expressing their objections and offering to try alternatives, or to withdraw from participation in Western medicine as currently practiced. COLLATERAL DEATHS Many vegetarians believe that, because they do not eat meat, no animals die to feed them. Unfortunately, this is rarely if ever true. Anyone who eats food that is grown using mechanical plows and harvesting machines must accept partial responsibility for the large numbers (no hard figures are available) of animals who die beneath or within these machines, or who die from pesticide and chemical fertilizer poisoning. This collateral death toll varies widely depending on the crop grown, the methods used, and the geographic features of the area. What a vegetarian does or doesn't eat can have a large effect on how many deaths they share responsibility for causing. Eating organic, preferably locally grown, food is a good way to reduce our impact on wildlife. Nonetheless, it appears that rice, when sown and harvested mechanically, takes the greatest toll on higher animals, especially amphibians. This is because rice paddies can support large populations of animals in a relatively small area. Again, accurate figures are not available for the numbers of animals killed in rice production, and some (but by no means all) organic rice growers provide valuable habitat for migratory birds and other large animals, working to avoid lethal clashes with them. Still, if you believe that a frog's life counts as much as a bird's, consumption of commercially grown rice (with the rare, expensive exception of hand-harvested wild rice) is problematic at best. OMNIVORES, HUNTERS AND VIVISECTIONISTS People who eat meat are not inherently evil. While this may seem self-evident to most people, some ethical vegetarians, in their zeal to convince others of the rightness of their lifestyle, demonize people who eat meat. It's true that eating meat supports the slaughter of animals, but when you look at collateral deaths, including those related to transportation and energy use, the line between those who support the killing of animals and those who do not can become blurred. A committed environmentalist who rides a bicycle, lives in an energy efficient apartment, and eats an occasional free-range chicken is certainly doing no more harm to the animal population - and is probably doing less - than a vegetarian who lives in the suburbs and commutes 50 miles to work in an SUV. Even typical meat eaters are not engaging in deliberate cruelty; they are behaving in a manner consistent with their societal values. Demonizing people who are different is counterproductive, because a friendly (or at least polite) vegetarian invites, by example, contemplation of their lifestyle. Hostility invites only more hostility, as well as dismissal of one's ideas. It is difficult for most ethical vegetarians to understand, much less condone, hunting. Some vegetarians accept that some subsistence hunting is no worse than raising domestic animals for food, while others believe that anyone who is capable of personally killing an animal is innately Evil. Like most simple ideas applied globally, this near-universal characterization of hunters is a mistake. Many hunters truly believe that they are doing what is best for wildlife by managing populations, while others point out that a deer killed by a hunter has at least had the chance to live free for a while, unlike most animals raised for food. It is not my intent here to debate these claims, only to point out that they are worthy of consideration, as are people who practice what they believe to be ethical hunting. Similarly, people who perform medical research using live animals are not universally evil. Most believe that they are performing important work for the good of humanity. Many of them also try to ensure that the animals used suffer as little as possible. Again, I do not wish to debate the merits of animal research here; I just want to point out that most of these researchers are also normal people, with deeply held beliefs and ethics. One can disagree with them and try to change the structure of medical research without directing violence and hatred personally at researchers. EGGS AND DAIRY PRODUCTS Lacto-ovo vegetarians often believe that, because they don't eat meat, they are doing enough to reduce the suffering of animals at the hands of humans. While it is possible to eat eggs and dairy products that have been produced in a reasonably humane fashion, the eggs sold in typical supermarkets are usually the product of battery hens: chickens who are crammed with other birds into tiny cages, unable to move much or even stretch their wings; often painfully debeaked, and who are fated to end their short lives in a slaughterhouse, or to die of infection. The antibiotics sometimes given to the birds to keep them alive under these conditions may also be contributing to the increasing numbers of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria. Even some eggs labelled "free-range" are merely part of a marketing ploy by people who do little to improve the lot of their laying hens. Local, organic eggs from producers who allow site inspections are the best bet for those who wish to eat eggs without causing extreme suffering. Dairy cows, who once led a pretty good life, and still often do, are now increasingly confined to stalls for much or even all of the day, and given growth hormones that both increase milk production and damage their health (and quite possibly human health as well). Their male calves are almost always taken away at an early age and raised as either crated veal calves or as "feeder veal" in pens away from their mothers. Buying organic dairy products can go a long way toward reducing suffering, but remember that even organic dairy farming is linked to meat production, and that nearly all dairy cows are slaughtered before they reach old age. CONCLUSION Life is complicated, and black/white, good/bad worldviews can be both perilously wrong and counterproductive. It is important that ethical vegetarians, like everyone else, think for ourselves, and learn to think critically. We are not going to get all of the knowledge we need from advocacy organizations, or from industries that have a vested interest in concealing, or at least veiling, the presence of animal products and animal testing in our everyday lives. The most effective way to promote vegetarianism is to understand its implications and limitations, and to treat those who disagree with it with respect and civility. The best way to promote our lifestyle is to strive to inspire others by our example. Copyright 2000, 2001 by Michael Cerkowski Distribute freely, but do not alter.