Micah Metz
Dr. Stephanie Brown
English 306
November 10, 2016
The
Great American Meatout Meet-Out
Food politics in
America have gotten more complicated ever since industrial farming became a
viable option for producers to increase their folds. While the history of
animal rights has had mixed perspectives for a while, the arguments for the
elimination, or at the very least, reduction, of meat from the daily diet have
increased in vivacity since the knowledge of farming methods became known to
those outside the industry. Even in a society full of meat eaters, the
depiction of animal treatment in cramped quarters as well as habits of force
feeding prior to slaughter can make anybody feel at least a small pang of
compassion for these creatures. Many activist groups have demonstrated
vegetarian ideology and opposition to animal testing, but among the more enduring
and close to the public is FARM's Great American Meatout (GAMO). FARM's
demonstration is an annual conference with the purpose of educating the masses
on a vegetarian lifestyle, as well as giving out information on animal
treatment inside industrial farming facilities. As an annual event, GAMO
directly affects a finite number of people in the duration of its activity (not
including other activities sponsored by FARM) but it's approach of grass-roots
lobbying with individuals has a more personal appeal to it than mass campaigns
from larger organizations. This essay will discuss the effectiveness of their
general approach to persuasion as well as fundamental arguments for their cause
within a society imbued with meat-eating rhetoric.
The primary
objective in GAMO rhetoric is to change the perspective of meat eaters on what
it is they're consuming. In Kimberly Powell's analysis of the movement, she
begins by noting overwhelming cultural acceptance of feed as a foodstuff.
"Meat is unarguably the staple of the US diet and a significant aspect of
US culture . . . The creation of meat as an appealing, powerful, healthful
product for consumers poses a unique challenge for groups arguing for a
meat-free lifestyle" (Powell, 81). A big issue for animal-rights activists
is persuading people to drop meat from their diets. While touting a campaign
that explicitly outlines poor animal treatment may gain some sympathetic
supporters, Kimberly points out that in the case of the GAMO, the issue of meat
consumption is that it is societally ingrained into the eaters as a cultural
item that is somewhat detached from the brutal process altogether. The purpose
and challenge of GAMO is to re-symbolize meat products into something less
desensitizing to the brutal reality behind the business, and they attempt to do
this through a method of celebrity / public icon appeal, propaganda on health
benefits, and generally advertising vegetarian or vegan alternatives that can
actually get a hold of the appetites of meat eaters.
The Great American
Meatout is hosted on March 20th, the first day of spring, as a means to
symbolize a new beginning. This fits in with the entire logos of the movement
as an encouragement for people to start new habits of a vegetarian lifestyle.
Volunteers and activists from around the US arrive to set up information
booths, street shows, and food samples that portray vegetarian life as a
healthful, beneficent alternative to meat consumption. Among the most popular
events is the Congress Congressional reception in Washington DC that treats up
to 200 staffers, and a few members of congress, to a six-course vegetarian
buffet, as well as providing other information regarding the positives on a
meatless lifestyle. What is key to notice about the rhetoric demonstrated in GAMO
is that the brutality of the industry isn't the entire focus of their goal in
reaching out to people, in contrast to what may be associated with a
common-animal rights campaign. The presence of vegetarian food is a major part
of the gathering in its attempts to show people that meat products do not
necessarily constitute the major staple in the American diet; there are plenty
of alternatives that are also enjoyable and don't condone violence towards
animals. Being as it's safe to say that eating for recreation isn't uncommon in
America, educating people on enjoyable meals that don't require meat is an
effective method for supporting vegan ideology, and it's one step in addressing
the proposed false notion that humans are naturally meat-consuming creatures
(Powell, 85).
FARM, and through
their sponsored conference of GAMO, have a variety of endorsements as well as a
proud message of the bodily benefits found in the dietary regime. The use of
attractive, famous celebrities and public figures are employed to help
represent the lifestyle as something effective; a few of the examples are
Meatout celebrity chairs like Bob Barker, Berke Breathed, Cezar Chavez, Doris
Day, Sara Gilbert, Casey Kasem, Tony LaRussa, Rue McClanahan, Kevin Nealon, and
Ally Sheedy (Powell, 87). In addition to cultural and celebrity public figures,
proclamations by politicians supporting Great American Meatout Day lends an air
of credibility and validity to the movement. In larger animal rights
organizations, such as PETA, the movement seems so large and full of
contributors that the distribution and rhetoric seems entire fulfilled by
officials within the massive movement; however, FARM is entirely funded by
contributors and while organized nationally by FARM, they rely on local
activists to carry out the campaign in the way of picketing demonstrations,
hosting vegetarian food festivals, and persuading schools and restaurants to
offer vegan entrees. (Powell, 83) Beyond public figures endorsement to offer an
accessible image of meat-free living, GAMO garners support from other health
organizations that are only tangentially related the cause of animal rights
through their involvement in related movements, and through their partnership
seek to bolden the link between various common illnesses and the habit of
eating meat.
Finally, FARM
argues that meat consumption is a threat to human life; it impedes the
prosperity and health of the population. The literature of the GAMO movement
cites correlations between and various illnesses that Americans die from every
year. "Nearly 60 percent of Americans die of meat-linked diseases. An
estimated 1,351,000 Americans, accounting for 59.3 percent of all deaths, died
in 1994 of diseases which consumption of meat and other animal products is a
substantial risk factor" (Kimberly Powell, The Farm Report, 1997 p. 6).
And they specifically cite the American Cancer Society as an ally in
discovering that eating animals is responsible for up to 35 percent of all
non-skin cancer cases (Powell, 89). The mention of health risks beyond that of
the typical forewarning of obesity and low libido offer a stronger, more
serious level of caution to onlookers, and partnership with another
organization specific to that field (the ACS) provides a network more
trustworthy than studies conducted within the organization.
The estimated
results from the Meatout campaign over the years is difficult to track with
absolute precision. As a campaign aimed towards persuading people to change
their lifestyle, it can be argued that those affected by the rhetoric may
accept it in varying capacities insofar as they're able to adapt or that it
appeals to them; several meat eaters may find it convincing and adopt a
stronger reliance on vegan dishes but not feel capable of giving up meat
altogether. However, the number of vegetarians recorded has remained fairly
consistent throughout the years and the scale of meat-productions hasn't shown
signs of slowing down. In terms actually halting the meat-industry in its
profiting, FARM's conference has had about as meager of an effect as the entire
animal rights movement as a whole, but its logos of marketing alternative food
choices above and beyond just that guilting people out of purchasing meat is
one that is less aggressive, and focuses more on reasoning rather than shock
value. FARM and it’s relevant campaigns offer what I view as an effective
message, but it’s one that likely won’t achieve anything insofar as meat and
fastfood remain at a comparable or lower cost to the more engaging vegan
entrees.
Works
Cited
Questions:
ReplyDelete1.) Are the notions of ethos / pathos / logos identified well enough, or is it clear why one of them may not need to be mentioned based on the premise of the movement?
2.) This movement is still going on each year today. Would more analysis (if material is available) on current data be necessary to understand their rhetoric?
3.) Is the source I'm using sufficient to make the claims I made about their rhetorical strategy?