Micah
Metz
Dr.
Stephanie Brown
English
306
November
3, 2016
The Great American Meatout
The
animal rights movement is one that is philosophically charged and imbued with a
protean, versatile rhetoric that has adapted throughout the years in response
to technological advances. Out of the plethora of movements and associations in
the United States that arose in the 20th century alone, The Farm
Animal Rights Movement (FARM) is one that has remained a stable contributor
since its inception in 1981, and it is responsible for various protests and
conferences on the subject that are meant to persuade meat eaters to adopt a
vegetarian lifestyle in a culture that is inundated in a meat-eating ethos. The
goal of persuasion, which is to change the perspective on meat as a foodstuff,
is a battle of long-suffering in a society that has it so heavily ingrained to
appreciate the commodity as a part of tradition, as well a culture that
originates from an ever-changing understanding and belief regarding the value
of animal life.
The
history of animal rights, in America and worldwide, is a modern one, emerging
only within the past few centuries, and only taking on its current shape even
more recently. With the development of technology and the correlating
population increase, the access to, desire, and necessity for ample food
sources has increased exponentially. This change in the social and economic
dynamic over the 20th century has created an environment for a more vocal,
radical movement because of these technological and anthropogenic developments,
and the mere scope of the industry, as well as its modern methods, has affected
the moods toward the treatment of animals as a food source. With increased
technological prowess of our generation comes the ability to rely less on
meat-sources for sustenance, and advocates of animal rights argue that such a
course of action is reasonable, for a variety of reasons. While the use of
animals for human purposes has a variety of perspectives on it within the
animal rights movement as a whole, with some arguing complete abolition of
their use, and others touting a propaganda of legislative reform that would
just limit it, the popularity of the notion that animals are more than just foodstuff
began in the 1700’s, and with the development of multiple societies formed to
protect the rights of animals, this philosophy has shown no signs of
regressing.
It
was the beginning of the 18th century that writers began discussing the
feelings of animals; how they feel pain and suffering, cruel treatment of
animals, vivisection, and the slaughter of them for food were topics within the
conversation at the time. But not surprisingly, this early adventure of animal
rights philosophy was not born out of the rural country where the cultivation
of animal products took place, but rather in the cities by the type of
professionals far removed from that business. As Harold Guither summarizes in
his text regarding the subject, "The pressure to change methods of
treating animals did not come from the owners, the grooms, the servants, and
cab drivers. Educated country clergymen and well-to-do townsmen remote from the
agricultural operations first expressed this new sentiment toward animals"
(1). Hunting and meat-filled diets have long been a marker in class-distinction,
and for this reason there was disjunction within the upper class in regards to
the rising notion of treating animals differently, and likewise it seemed
unfair to impair the livelihood of farmers who depended in their use of animals
for food and other products. There was reason for aversion against this humane
rhetoric in both classes, but after many unsuccessful attempts, the first
society for animal protection arise in 1824, later to become the Royal Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. These are early European steps toward
the movement, from which America would later get involved into an equal extent.
(Guither, 1-2)
While
the animal rights concept was born in eighteenth century England, and humane
societies continued to sprout up in America and England throughout the 18th and
19th centuries, the serious social movement as it is known now in the United
States began in the 1970s. The aims of this modern movement are different from
the traditional societies that still work to prevent animal cruelty and to
shelter impoverished creatures. Traditional animal rights syndicates focused on
the fair treatment and humane use of animals, while the modern American
movement is more closely tied with the philosophical understanding that
animals, like humans, possess similar inalienable rights that humans are
entitled to. There is a divide on this issue between various interest groups in
the overall movement that will be discussed later, but this philosophical
notion as a whole is closely associated with this era as opposed to more
traditional proponents of animal welfare movements in Europe (Guither, 4).
Within this vein of thought comes the practice of vegetarianism and similar
ideologies of refusing to use animal products on the basis of respecting an animal's
right to life; it is a lifestyle that is arguably most closely synonymous with
the entire animal rights movement as a whole, even though not all proponents of
humane treatment of animals are vegetarian. It is also the lifestyle that the
protest under later discussion is entirely based on.
Vegetarian literature contains multiple definitions. Traditional
vegetarians do not consume meat, but may consume dairy products; for these, the
uncommon term 'lacto-vegetarians' is applicable. Recently, the term for people
who do not consume any animal products, nor wear animal skins or anything else
that involves an animal as a source for productions, are referred to as
'vegan.' While vegetarian communities have existed since the 19th century, the
popularity of this lifestyle in the United States primarily took wind in the
1960s. In this era, the increased food production of meat in the industry
served as a rallying point for vegetarians to proselytize their lifestyle, and
argue for a repurposing of resources to utilize the plant products for the
population's food supply. Writers such as John Robbins argues that if the
amount of grain and farmland used to feed animals were repurposed to feed the
regular population, then it would be enough to meet the necessities for survival,
and there would be enough left over to export; meat, then, is a staple food of
a wealthy society that can afford the luxury and isn't something that is
required to survive. And it is true that the meat industry is so affluent
because of the economic prosperity of the nation in which this industry is
primarily housed. America was and is the number one consumer of meat, and the
love for the food is culturally appreciated. The cultural acceptance is so
ingrained into the society that government leadership sought to nationalize, as
demonstrated through the proposal of ‘National Meat Week’ (S.Res.396 — 98th
Congress [1983-1984]); such proposals sparked a slew of rhetorical stances on
the socially accepted ways of treating animals, (Guither, 113-114) and such a
cultural atmosphere was a galvanizing force in the creation of contemporary
animal rights movements and protests. It was in this time and context when FARM
proposed the creation of the Great American Meatout as a direct response to
this congressional title, but their rhetoric falls in line with the eclectic
comradery of other associations in the wider animal rights movement, some of
which undergoing changes in tactics over the length of their terms according to
broader cultural changes.
As
previously noted, the history of the animal rights movement is filled with
changes in the philosophical understanding of morality as it pertains to the
ethical treatment of non-human life. As a result of these views and the
changing lifestyle of the modern age, private societies united in the effort to
affect change in the political realm arose. This growing, intensifying climate
of animal-rights proponents helped create a more socially acceptable atmosphere
for later movements to engage in their displays with more publicity. Beginning
with the earliest examples of outspoken animal rights rhetoric, the focus was
aimed more towards humane treatment as opposed to disbandment of consumption of
animals, with the history of this rhetoric dating back to the 19th
century in America.
The
first private humane society in the United States was The American Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) in 1866. Its major objective was
to provide an effective means of preventing cruelty to animals throughout the
country; the society has remained active since its inception, with a membership
of 350,000 as of 1994. Throughout the existence of this society, up until 1994,
the ASPCA offered shelter to estranged animals. When the contract for the
upkeep of the shelter expired, the ASPCA notified the city of New York that it
would not renew the contract; from then on their objective of preventing
inhumane conditions for animals separated from dealing with the aftermath, and
instead focused on providing information on how to prevent the overpopulation
of urban pets that lead to these effects. The ASPCA has been a proponent of
livable conditions for animals since their founding, extending these concerns
to all areas of animal interest, including farm animals The ASPCA opposes raising
any animal under inhumane conditions. As outlined in Guithers historical survey
of animal rights movements, "practices in [the ASPCA's] view falling under
this definition include veal calf farming when the calves are raised in
individual crates or stalls, branding of the faces of cattle, and intensive
food animal production" (Guither, 36). As will be seen, other
organizations may take a stronger, abolitionist stance on views of animal
consumption, and views concerning the extent to which animals should be farmed,
if at all, vary. But the ASPCA is an example of an original, long-running
organization that seeks for a reformation of animal treatment more so than
touting a philosophy of vegetarianism.
Closer
to the inception of the Great American Meatout, and likely one of the most well-known
and influential organizations in the animal rights movement, is the People for
the Ethical Treatment of Animals. PETA (founded in 1980) is arguably the
largest animal rights organization to date, with membership being around
500,000 members (although in this case any contributors are considered to be
members) and its philosophy of the treatment of animals is wider than that
shown by the ASPCA. For example, the philosophy of the founder of the
organization, Ingrid Newkirk, posits a doctrine that calls for abandoning
animal testing of cosmetics and household products, promoting vegetarian diets,
supporting animal shelters, and boycotting souvenirs that may contain animal
products; such rhetorical advances go beyond that of responsible use of animal
products and asserts that animals have a right to be exempt from these
circumstances altogether. While the growth of PETA is a notable step towards a
vegetarian ideology within the overall movement, some of the organizations escapades
cross lines that onlookers (perhaps even those within the larger movement of
animal rights) find ridiculous; for example, in 2011 PETA argued that
performing whales in seaworld were subjugated in a slavery-like servitude, and
threatened to file a lawsuit claiming that seaworld's use of whales violated
the 13th amendment's ban on slavery (cbsnews). While later film productions,
such as Blackfish, also portray performance-animals in a negative light,
comparing the act of using animals for entertainment to the actual cases of
human slavery in the country garnered some negative attention, including
mockery from political humorists such as Stephen Colbert. PETA's stance on the
use of animals has a slight level of notoriety for a few stunts such as this one,
but they're indicative of a growing confidence in the justification in their
cause that seems to have been more adopted and tolerated by the public.
(Guither, 48-49) The notion of absolute refraining from meat consumption, by
around the time PETA was born, took a primary role in protests, and such groups
like the Farm Animal Reform Movement (FARM) after PETA would continue these
sorts of demonstrations.
The
rhetorical tactics employed by FARM in their annual festivity show an
inclination to PETA’s ideology of non-animal exploitation, but with a less
stark contrast to the surrounding rhetorical climate that PETA seems to have
achieved with a few of their more controversial claims. With the base objective
of the movement being to change the way American society conceptualizes meat
products, the Great American Meatout takes an approach that is about warming
people up to the idea of changing their diets as opposed to constantly
reminding others of humane injustices against animals, even if those factors
are still related in some capacity. Through open invitation to try an
alternative lifestyle for only a day, FARM’s movement provides a more hands on
experience in their persuasion as opposed to a distant decree of an issue much
larger than any one individual’s possible involvement.
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 Great American Meatout
(GAMO) is among the longest running, lasting approximately 30 years. 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 section will discuss the
effectiveness of their general approach to persuasion as well as fundamental
arguments for their cause within a society instilled 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 (Powell, 85). 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.
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 embolden the link between
various common illnesses and the habit of eating meat. For example, FARM argues
that meat consumption is a threat to human life, claiming 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. They cited American Cancer Society (ACS) 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. For example, red meat and processed meat consumption are
considered by the ACS to be risk factors in heightening one’s possibility of
developing colorectal cancer (cancer.org), and furthermore such findings are
reflected in the World Health Organization’s declaration of these food
categories as carcinogens (who.itn). The partnership with another organization
specific to that field regarding such a health claim 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 (Stahler, 3) and the scale of meat-productions
hasn't shown signs of slowing down (usda.gov). 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; that is to say, the
philosophical notion of animal rights has been treated more seriously with the
types of endorsements received by the groups, but nothing that is convincing
enough for people to quit the types of food they genuinely enjoy eating.
However, 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, and that’s an approach that
reaps fewer critical views than some the contemporary stances and claims made
by larger organizations, such as PETA. FARM, and its 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.
What’s important to consider, and what was made explicit in GAMO literature, is that the plight to reducing a reliance on meat products stems largely from the tradition of having meat in the American diet. There is an increased awareness of the poor housing conditions, with polemic exposés reaching high publications such as the New York Times (Moss, nytimes) but the reality portrayed by such exposures as these is that the primary issue in the industry, the mistreatment, experimentation, and mass slaughter of animals is always hidden from public view, and much of the exposure of these practices is emphasized by activists groups rather than regular news programs or corporate transparency. With the long-running status of the organization and the support received from celebrity and political endorsements, the intellectual battle seems to be well enough embarked to get the condition of the industry validated, but the lack of direct visibility to the public is less motivated to quit foods that are immensely pleasurable vices. Changing the general public opinion on any issue is a time consuming process that may take generations, but GAMO promises positive results by choosing to persuade by offering alternatives ontop of the moral rhetoric of ethical treatment.
Works Cited
Guither, Harold D. Animal
Rights: History and Scope of a radical social movement. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, c1998.
Print.
Moss,
Michael. “Animal Welfare at Risk in Experiments for Meat Industry.” Nytimes.com. January, 2015. Web.
“PETA: Seaworld Keeps Orcas ‘In Slavery.’” cbsnews.com. October 26, 2011. Web.
Powell, Kimberly A. “The Great American Meatout: Engaging a Society of
Meat-Eaters in Anti Meat Eating Rhetoric.” Journal of the
Northwest Communication Association. Spring2002,
Vol. 31
“Q&A On the Carcinogenicity of Red Meat and Processed Meat.” Who.itn. World Health Organization, October 2015. Web. December 2,
2016.
“World Health Organization Says Processed Meat
Causes Cancer.” Cancer.org. Web.
December 2, 2016
Stahler, Charles. “How Many Adults are
Vegetarian?” fda.gov. 2006. Web.
United States Department of Agriculture.
“Statistics and Information.” Ers.usda.gov. October 6, 2016. Web.
98th Congress.
“A resolution to express the sense of the Congress that January 27 through February 2, 1985, should be observed as
‘National Meat Week.’” Congress.gov.
Wen.
No comments:
Post a Comment