Two Steps Forward, One (Giant) Step Back

Progress comes in fits and starts; two or more steps forward, one or more back. Here are some examples:

Two Steps Forward

(thanks to vegan.com for the HSUS links)

1. On February 17, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) published a press release regarding Harris Teeter, a southern chain of 200 grocery stores headquartered in my hometown of Charlotte, NC. Harris Teeter has announced plans to . . .

sell nearly four times the amount of cage-free eggs as the grocery industry's national average, phase-in pork from suppliers that don't use gestation crates to confine breeding pigs and dramatically increase the amount of poultry it sells from producers that use a less-inhumane slaughter system called "controlled-atmosphere killing."

Controlled-atmosphere killing is a gas chamber-type arrangement that causes the chickens to lose consciousness instead of being decapitated. (Can anything with the word "killing" in it be called progress when the subjects are guilty of nothing except existing?)

2. On February 18, HSUS issued another press release concerning Wal-Mart's announcement that all of its private label eggs are now from cage-free chickens. Wal-Mart accounts for 30 percent of grocery sales in the U.S., so this is no small matter. The press release also said . . .

Many supermarket chains have taken steps to increase their sales of cage-free eggs, including Harris Teeter, Winn-Dixie, Trader Joe's, Whole Foods and Safeway. National restaurant chains—including Burger King, Wendy's, Denny's, Red Robin, Quiznos, Sonic,Hardee's and Carl's Jr.—have also started using cage-free eggs.

So, kudos to companies who are changing policies. It's hard to know what prompts these changes—a combination of things, no doubt. The president of Harris Teeter said,

"Harris Teeter believes that part of being a good corporate citizen means helping to improve conditions for farm animals. It's important to us, to our customers and to animals."

It's easy to be critical of these companies for being late to the party, but I was 50 years late myself. So I'm thankful that more steps are being taken, however halting, that aligns life on earth with the values of the kingdom of God.

One Step Back

(thanks to my son David for this link)

A Feburary 18, 2010, New York Times op-ed piece, "Not Grass-Fed, but at Least Pain-Free," details a bizarre new level of genetic engineering that is being explored—cut from the same cloth as the "controlled-atmosphere killing" method Harris Teeter plans to use. In other words, we're not going to stop killing billions of animals each year, so let's at least try to take pain out of the equation. Scientists have genetically engineered lab rats so that they feel pain in a way that it doesn't hurt, and they suspect it may be possible to breed cows and pigs the same way. This takes the GMO (genetically modified organisms) debate to a whole new level, from the field to the factory farm. The author of the op-ed concludes,

If we cannot avoid factory farms altogether, the least we can do is eliminate the unpleasantness of pain in the animals that must live and die on them. It would be far better than doing nothing at all.

I would question his initial premise: "If we cannot avoid factor farms altogether . . . ." Of course we can avoid them! All that's necessary is for everyone who eats food raised in factory farms to stop. When the demand stops, the factory farms will stop. This is an intellectually lazy piece of opining, in my humble opinion. The author (a doctoral student in the philosophy of neuroscience and psychology) didn't say he was willing to stop, so I can only assume that he's part of the problem (being willing to live with factory farms) instead of the solution (taking a stand against eating animals raised in factory farms in order to cast a personal vote with his wallet). Such experimenting is just one more effort to allow non-thinking people to have their cake (meat) and eat it too ("It's alright; they don't feel a thing.") Geez.

Partial progress, as described in the Wal-Mart and Harris Teeter examples, is good since it acknowledges the natural characteristics of animals and takes steps to treat them accordingly. But to genetically change the natural tendency of animals (from feeling pain to not feeling pain) is a scary frontier.

As I said, two steps forward and one step back.