Where officials have finally come to describe the situation at Fukushima as “the world’s worst since Chernobyl in 1986″, Dr. Caldicott explains at a press conference in the video below how the situation and its ramifications far exceed anything seen at Chernobyl (information concerning which has barely trickled into public hands until recent years, before which there was mostly downplaying by officials of the effects on the human population in the general area).

We need to work harder to inform ourselves — to seek out information without waiting to be spoon-fed by mainstream media whatever they’re given to spoon-feed us by those in charge who have a vested interest in our continuing to support nuclear energy. Most importantly, we need to reduce our energy consumption on every level we can in terms of direct use and indirect use through our consumerism. Will doing so change what happened at Fukushima? No. But at a time when we’re seeing our waters — the habitats of so many non-human animals — poisoned for want of cheaper fossil fuel, and catastrophes such as what happened at Fukushima (or earlier Chernobyl and Three Mile Island) which are literally killing us and other living beings around us, should we not hold ourselves accountable for providing the demand for cheap energy, so much of it wasted in the first place?

Please think about it.

Last November, Harper was interviewed by Fitness magazine to talk to them “about his vegan lifestyle” and when asked for “healthy eating tips” he’d give to “readers who may or may not be interested in veganism “, Harper included trendy Greek yogurt with his vegan options. I don’t know about the rest of you, but if given an opportunity as a vegan to educate the public about what to eat, my go-to place certainly wouldn’t be to promote animal products. If I were a vegan who was also deemed an authority on personal health and fitness, I’d certainly jump at every opportunity to talk to others about not eating animals or their products.

But what do I know? Even celebrity-beloved Farm Sanctuary seems a bit confused about whether or not humans — even those who engage in animal advocacy — should be using animals or promoting animal use. Some of their supporters questioned them on their Facebook page this past October 1 about whether Harper was a suitable spokesperson for their Farm Sanctuary Walk for Animals Campaign. At the time, Harper was also plugging Jennie-O Turkey, a company which sells turkey meat and is a major sponsor of Harper’s Biggest Loser TV show. Farm Sanctuary’s response to this reasonable question?

When working with celebrities, we understand that they are under immense pressure to maintain their public platform, and at times, and for a variety of reasons, their personal values may not always be reflected within their public persona. When we focus our energies on who is the purest amongst us, we do a disservice to animals.

So actually going vegan or(gasp!) expecting other self-described vegans to not promote animal use, according to Farm Sanctuary, does a “disservice to animals”? I guess, then, that they’ve found their ideal spokesperson — although they at least didn’t go so far as to select him as the celebrity face for the Adopt-a-Turkey Project they were in the middle of promoting. (I’m guessing that the suits at Jennie-O would have disapproved at such a blatant contradiction?)

Harper’s spent a lot of time since outing himself as a vegan talking about the personal health benefits of veganism. During a Star interview this past May, which ended up discussed by many animal advocates online, Harper focused on veganism being about “feeling good” oneself. However, he also stressed that it’s not altogether necessary to go vegan to attain this feeling of well-being:

I tell people all the time that you don’t have to be a vegetarian or vegan to feel good, but I want people to rely more on plant-based foods. [...] For animal-eaters it’s important that you get grass-fed meats and all organic produce. If you make sure you are eating in that way, you may pay more now-but you will save a lot on medical costs later.

Furthermore, although he did call himself a vegan in the interview, when asked whether he “miss[es] meat”, Harper responded with an emphatic “definitely” and proceeded to elaborate that he’s a vegan who indulges his cravings for animal products because he doesn’t feel that he should impose rules upon his consumption:

Look, nobody is perfect and I definitely have cheated but I don’t beat myself up for it. I don’t want life to be so regimented. If I want some cheese or something I definitely let myself.

In fact, when prodded further and asked if he allows himself “a cheat a day”, Harper responded:

I don’t necessarily have a cheat day, but I do allow myself to indulge once in a while without beating myself up. The other day I broke down and had some pizza-and it was so good!

Not to “beat” Bob Harper up, or anything — since he seems quite concerned with not getting himself down over his self-identifying as vegan while continuing to indulge in consuming animals or their products because they’re “so good!” — but surely he’s an intelligent enough fellow to understand basic definitions? Surely?

Not only does Harper call himself vegan while admitting to eating animal products in interviews, but (according to the non-vegan site This Dish is Veg) as recently as yesterday, he tweeted that he gave in to a craving for egg whites. To promote veganism? To promote Farm Sanctuary? It seems that the only thing Harper ended up promoting is his self-indulgent use of non-human animals. When asked by another tweeter if it was the first time since going vegan he’d consumed animal products, Harper (in flat-out contradiction to to the responses he gave in the interviews to which I’ve linked above) replied with an emphatic “YES!!!!!”. When another tweeter asked him if he thinks that egg whites are vegan, Harper gave some indication that he does, in fact, understand the definition of “vegan” when he responded “NO”.

Today, Harper seemed surprised that some of the people who may have nonetheless thought he was the real deal have responded to his gushing over egg whites. His stating that he’d gotten “really HORRIBLE messages” was a little over dramatic, though; with the exception of one nasty pro-violence tweeter, most of what he received by that point were earnest questions from other animal advocates asking “why” he’d eaten eggs. Still, he chose to limit his response to that one nasty tweeter earlier. Judging by the hundreds of supportive responses he’s gotten so far from non-vegans (and former “vegans”) asserting that there’s nothing wrong with consuming eggs, that what he eats is his personal choice, that there’s such a thing as “happy eggs”, I’d say that so-called “vegan” Harper‘s done a solid job delivering a clear message to the public that there’s nothing wrong with consuming animal products. And no thanks to that one nasty tweeter, Harper’s also helped facilitate the public perception of vegans as being hateful and deranged, as well as to hold himself up as a bit of a martyr.

Was he ever vegan? Probably not. But what concerns me isn’t whether he was or wasn’t; what actually concerns me is the fall-out from yet another celebrity’s having presented himself as such and caused more damage than good. Sadly, it looks like the biggest losers today will be the non-human animals.

Whole Foods

My own journey towards veganism was long and slow, starting out with a vegetarian diet (too) many years ago which involved basic whole foods from the start. When I first decided to stop eating meat back in university, even tofu was something you could pretty much only find in bulk in a bin at a health food store. Most of the books on vegetarianism available to me were old natural foods cookbooks from the 60s and 70s I managed to find in secondhand bookstores (think Recipes for a Small Planet, for instance); they obviously predated what’s become the mainstreaming of processed vegan foods. Instead of calling for a tube of Gimme Lean, a “meat” loaf recipe was more likely to call for mashed soybeans, nuts and vegetables. Burger recipes often consisted of beans, whole grains and grated vegetables instead of anything intended to in any way replicate the taste or texture of beef. I learned to cook from scratch in this manner and most of my cooking didn’t involve trying to mimic animal products.

An Expanding Niche Market

Times have changed, though. At some point, soy dogs started to pop up everywhere, along with a growing variety of hamburger-like veggie burgers. Soy-based deli slices — mock pepperoni, salami, smoked “turkey” and so on — began to show up in ordinary supermarkets. The more time passed, it seemed, the wider the variety of options which became available — and the more realistic those options became. Living with a non-vegetarian at the time whose mantra was “If you cook it, I’ll gladly eat it!” but who himself tended to lean towards convenience when needing to forage in the kitchen, I started to include some analogues on our shopping lists. I tried some of them out of sheer curiosity and ended up using some semi-regularly for convenience or variety. I’ll admit that first tube of Gimme Lean! I bought after years of not having had animal products really wigged me out, although I quickly got used to it, knowing that it was plant-based.

Say “Cheeze”!

Processed fake cheese products have also increased in variety and improved tremendously in taste and texture. I remember the first time I had soy slices before going vegan and how they invariably seemed to contain casein and to smell like old sneakers. Perhaps because of this, most discussions of satisfying “cheese” cravings on the vegetarian and vegan message boards I frequented at the time involved recipes for nutritional yeast sauces or discussions of Joanne Stepaniak cookbooks, which included recipe for soy, nut or nutritional yeast “cheeses” of wide-ranging flavour and consistency. Today we have any number of completely vegan-friendly cheese analogues available, including Teese, Sheese, Follow Your Heart’s Vegan Gourmet line and the latest (and it seems most popular) addition, Daiya.

At first only available in selected US restaurants or by mail order, Daiya has ended up in health food stores across North America and is now, too, becoming available in regular supermarkets. When it was first introduced in one chain’s store in my tiny city, the 2-3 dozen packages of cheddar and mozzarella Daiya were sold out within a few days. Aside from being completely vegan, Daiya is also soy-free and has that rare trait that cheese substitute manufacturers have tried in vain to reproduce for years — it’s stretchy like dairy cheese.

The cheese substitutes have been an occasional indulgence for me. I’ve most often picked them up when I’ve had non-vegan house-guests, although I do wholeheartedly appreciate a good plate of nachos topped with gooey Nacho Vegan Gourmet or Daiya Cheddar Style Shreds. Although I’m generally quite thrilled with topping pizza with sweet potatoes or hummus and a mixture of tasty and tangy vegetables (see photo below on the left), sometimes it’s nice to indulge in some Daiya Mozzarella Style Shreds just for kicks (see photo below on the right). Unlike many meat analogues, which are often fortified with any number of additional vitamins and minerals, cheese “subs” are often bereft of any notable nutritional value and on top of their being processed foods, are also rather junk-y foods..

Assumptions

Not being a heavy or frequent consumer of meat or cheese substitutes, I’ve never really thought about how their consumption could appear on the outside looking in. At least I didn’t until I had a conversation with a non-vegan friend one day about my experimentation with Daiya when a local health food store first began to carry it. I mentioned pizza and she brought up that she’d had friends over the previous weekend for pizza and movies. She told me that she’d mentioned to one of her guests how I would have loved to have been there, but that it would have been “cruel” for me, since I “missed cheese pizza” and had told her once, many many years ago, how I used to love Italian sausage on my pizza. She told me that she figured that it would have been tempting for me. I asked why she’d think that and she said that I was “obviously excited about finding substitutes to satisfy my cravings”.

I sat back at that point and then mentioned to her that after many years of not eating meat and years of not eating cheese that I craved neither. I told her that I now associate animal products with the animals from whom they’re taken and that this involves being aware of how that comes to happen — something I completely reject on both intellectual and visceral levels. I pointed out that during most of my transition to veganism, I’d settled into making dishes which didn’t really involve trying to substitute animal products. “Yeah, but you’re obviously excited about Daiya for a reason,” she said. I wasn’t, though. At least I wasn’t for the reasons she was assuming.

Substitutes have generally been items I’ve used to offer up to non-vegans to make plant-based foods feel more familiar to them. Daiya was (and is) just a fun plant-based ingredient for me to use to make dishes I used to make. It’s just one of several plant-based options for me and since most of my cooking over the years has involved — and still involves — focusing on whole foods, processed substitutes aren’t things upon which I rely at all. But after that conversation, I was left wondering how it appears on the outside looking in and what, if anything, I needed to do to address that. The truth is that I don’t crave animal flesh and that the idea of deliberately consuming animal products is repugnant to me. I recognize analogues for what they are. They may provide some sense of familiarity, but without exploitation — which is what I reject. I don’t “miss” eating animal products, but I wonder if my sometimes consuming analogies is sending out a different message to non-vegan friends and family members. Could this be one more thing that needs to be lumped in when educating non-vegans about veganism?

For the past few days, animal advocates across the internet have been discussing the recent so-called expose “of the cruelty inflicted on Australian cattle exported to the slaughterhouses of Indonesia”. The story broke on May 30 when the ABC (i.e. Australian Broadcasting Corporation) television program “Four Corners” aired a program containing undercover footage of the cows fattened in Australian-approved feedlots and then slaughtered in Australian-approved slaughterhouses by Australian-trained Indonesian workers. I have not seen the footage, myself, for the same reason I don’t gawk at accident scenes — I’ve no doubt that it’s completely awful.

Judging by the hundreds of related news articles from around the world covering this story (along with thousands of readers’ comments left in response to those articles) and that the link to the story has been shared just short of 7000 times on Facebook and all over other social networking sites, it’s evident that even the non-vegan general public is outraged. The story has gotten enough attention that the expression “treated like Indonesian cattle” has now even started being used to describe the grossly ill treatment of humans.

Follow the Money

So much of the focus is being placed on the fact that Indonesia’s “standards” for slaughtering non-humans are not as high as Australia’s. A definite “us versus them” mentality has been reflected in the responses of the Australian government and cattle industry, proclaiming loudly and clearly that the cruelty involved in this whole mess is a deplorable exception limited to practices in Indonesia. The livestock export industry has promptly communicated its indignation to the press, as well. Faced with criticism for its direct involvement in the Indonesian abattoir expose — as well as the possibility of a more generalized criticism of exporting live animals to a different country altogether for slaughter — LiveCorp CEO Cameron Hall insisted in a press release that they really do want what’s best for Australia’s dear old homegrown cows:

“Cruelty to Australian animals is simply unacceptable. We will not tolerate it,” Mr Hall said today. [...] Mr Hall said there was more work to be done, particularly at the point of processing, however if Australia was to cease exporting cattle, animal welfare would only go backwards. “No other nation has the same commitment to animal welfare as Australia and no other country invests in animal welfare like we do.”

Australian politicians who’ve expressed the most indignation over the story have also been making it clear that it’s not that cows are being raised for slaughter that’s a concern and that Australian animal slaughter practices are somehow ethical and good. It’s not even the stress of the cramming together and shipping off of animals to another country that’s a concern for most. In fact, a strong argument being presented in response to the Indonesian slaughterhouse story is that ending exportation could ultimately help the Australian economy:

The end of live exports would boost domestic jobs with the processing of the animals done here rather than offshore, [independent MP] Andrew Wilkie said. “We should be processing these beasts in Australia,” he said.

In tandem with this, many animal welfare groups and animal advocates have been propagating petitions to ban the further exploitation of live Australian cattle to Indonesia or featuring the story on their websites, often with gory clips from the original broadcast or with excruciatingly disturbing details of the footage which was taken.

When “Exception” is Really the Status Quo

The truth is that one need not single out Indonesia for abhorrent practices when it comes to the killing of non-human animals for human consumption; random undercover footage taken at slaughterhouses in many countries frequently display goings on which shock the general public. As Prof. Gary L. Francione commented on his Facebook page on May 31:

Does anyone believe that Australian slaughterhouses and slaughter in Australia as a general matter are “humane”? Any such belief would be mistaken. This is really a perfect example of how we try to delude ourselves into thinking that there are “civilized” ways to exploit nonhumans.

Minor punishments are doled out, promises are made to make nice with the cows and then after a collective sigh of relief is issued, it’s all forgotten. Francione elaborated further by suggesting of this outrage-provoking news story that “it makes people [...] feel better to be able to point to someone else who does the same thing as ‘uncivilized’ while we pat ourselves on the back”. Ground beef, rib roast and so on continue to appear on grocery lists and are then purchased and devoured without a second-thought being given to what a mere few weeks prior had seemed inexcusably “inhumane” — at least until the next random undercover video of habitual goings on at slaughterhouses ends up making the rounds. Lather, rinse, repeat.

“We Need to Start Somewhere“

I got into a brief discussion with a vegan animal advocate yesterday who’d posted a link on a social networking site to a petition to ban the exportation of Australian cows to Indonesia. I asked if she thought her time and energy were being well spent in implicitly endorsing one form of animal slaughter as preferable to another, when she could instead take the opportunity to educate people about what is inherently wrong in any situation where a non-human animal is raised for slaughter. “But we need to start somewhere,” she said. Why, though, should that “somewhere” involve contributing to the delusion that there is such a thing as an acceptable manner in which any animal could be raised and then killed for trivial reasons dictated by human habit or whim? Why waste a perfect opportunity to directly question the ethics of treating sentient beings as things which merely exist for human use? Why engage in activism which merely reinforces the idea that animal use — animal slaughter — is normal, and that it can somehow be morally acceptable?

Why can’t that “somewhere” from which we need to start involve talking to people about going vegan? Think about it.