As humans, we have a natural aversion to needless suffering. We don't abuse pets and wince upon seeing some callous soul act differently. We cause traffic accidents dodging kamikaze squirrels-yet the majority of America continues to support industries that allow animals to be treated in a way we would be sickened to watch.
Vegetarians resolve this inconsistency by eliminating any intake of meat and often other products derived from animals. It's refreshing to see people living so congruently with their values.
Somewhat less refreshing is the "with us or the terrorists" stance some prominent animal rights groups take on vegetarianism and veganism.
Not all omnivores endorse animal cruelty. Many care about the welfare of animals; they just aren't convinced that fish sticks are, in and of themselves, evil.
Rather than degrading people for eating meat, vegetarians should highlight ways people from all mindsets can fight abuse.
When looking specifically at animal cruelty, the American who doesn't have a problem with meat can actually effect more change by eating free-range products as opposed to completely abstaining from meat.
Eating free-range meat better counters the economic forces that make cruelty profitable.
Vetoing all meat doesn't give any incentive for a farmer already committed to raising livestock to stop abusing his animals. If you're not going to buy a chicken regardless of how it's treated, why should anyone change for you?
In addition to taking away the profit a merchant brings in, purchasing free-range presents him or her with a viable way to earn that profit back-by stopping abuse.
Specifying your attack on the methods, rather than the entirety, of a farmer's livelihood gives you a greater chance of changing those methods-especially if a competing farmer is reaping the benefits of your support of humanely raised chickens.
Furthermore, convincing creatures with canine teeth and an omnivorous stomach that it's wrong to eat meat isn't an easy sell. A much more effective pitch focuses its message on the vital issue at hand-fighting animal cruelty.
When given the choice between two comparably priced chicken packages, it's hard to imagine many people choosing the one that condoned torture. The reason that abused meat remains in the produce section centers around its cost and availability in comparison to better meat.
Free-range products will only decrease in price and increase in availability if those who value animal welfare actively purchase them. Such purchases create the basic economies of scale and distribution that, once established, will make choosing against animal cruelty a readily accessible option for the everyday, meat-eating American.
When the fight becomes easy to join, average people join the fight. Without core consumers putting pressure on farmers, abuse will persist.
If you're a vegetarian, allying with anyone who eats meat probably feels like treason, but if it will stop more cruelty, why not stand by those also trying to stand by animals?
The extra cows saved would much rather you help them wherever you can than sacrifice their welfare on the cross of absolutism.
letters@chronicle.utah.edu
