|
Thank you for sending the carton of Why
Vegan. I am distributing them at L.A.'s most popular yoga
studio, and at Santa Monica's Sunday Farmers Market. At the studio,
about 300 people a day have the opportunity to take a copy. At
the Market, about 3,000 people pass by the table. Between them,
it took only a short time for the 300 copies of Why Vegan
to disappear.
I really feel we are reaching a receptive audience of potential
vegans.
JR, Venice, CA, 5/31/02
Announcements & News
Starting on May 27th, 2002, COK's first TV ad has appeared on D.C.'s
CBS affiliate (channel 9) between 5:45 and 6:00 p.m. The ad ran each
weeknight for two weeks.
This may be the first time in the United States that an explicitly
pro-vegan ad showing factory-farmed animals has appeared on a major
network during such a high-viewership time slot.
"Scum and foam were piled so high on the surface of streams
and ponds in the rural Illinois area neighboring the Inwood Dairy
that it looked like snow. According to Karen Hudson, a local family
farmer and activist with FARM (Families Against Rural Messes), "The
air pollution was so severe the neighbors were forced to tear their
carpet out, and burn candles to keep the stench at bay–at night
they had to spray perfume in their bedrooms.... The odor was not
merely a manure odor," Hudson added. "It had a septic and
the decaying smell of a dead body. It could be smelled several miles
away–I know because I live 4.5 miles from it. That is why we renamed
our state from Illinois, Land of Lincoln, to Illinois, Land of Stinkin'."
The Relationship between Consumption of Animal Products and Risk
of Chronic Diseases: A
Critical Review
From the Summary:
"The effects of animal products on risk of chronic diseases
are an area of considerable controversy. ... [I]international correlations
between per capita food consumption and disease rates are seriously
confounded by other lifestyle factors associated with economic affluence.
... One of the most comprehensive correlational studies conducted
within a country is the China-Oxford-Cornell study.... These correlations,
although informative and valuable in many ways, cannot be used to
establish causal relationships between dietary factors and disease
risk. The limitations of geographical correlations were precisely
stated by Drs Doll and Peto:
Trustworthy epidemiological evidence, it should be noted, always
requires demonstration that a relationship holds for individuals
(or perhaps small groups) within a large population as well as
between large population groups. Correlation between the incidence
of cancer in whole towns or whole countries and, for example, the
consumption of particular items of food can, at most, provide hypotheses
for investigation by other means. Attempts to separate the roles
of causative and of confounding factors by statistical techniques
of multiple regression analysis have been made often, but evidence
obtained in this way is, at best, of only marginal value.
"Indeed, some of the correlations produced from the China-Oxford-Cornell
study are peculiar and probably incorrect. For example, esophageal
cancer had no clear association with smoking, and had a negative
correlation with daily alcohol intake. These results are clearly
contradictory to the well-established findings from studies of individuals
that both smoking and alcohol use are strong risk factors for esophageal
cancer. In addition, the study did not find a clear association between
meat consumption and risk of heart disease or major cancers."
"As many as several hundred family farm protestors, who were
in the Washington, D.C. for a national activist group's national
convention, temporarily commandeered the offices of the American
Meat Institute in Arlington, Va., to protest the trade group's alleged
support of corporate factory farms that are "monopolizing the
meat industry."
"The activists, led by members of group National People's Action,
charged that AMI was a target because the trade group led the fight
against a farm bill amendment to that would have banned packer ownership
or control of livestock. Additionally, the protestors carried signs
objecting to environmental pollution related to confined animal feeding
operations, which are currently being targeted for regulation by
the Environmental Protection Agency."
Thanks a million for the Why Vegans.
We handed out over 200 at the University Music Festival. Every
Friday, we're doing "Meet Your Meat" video showings on
the sidewalk downtown, and handing out more then. Anyplace we can
think of, we display them.
JC, Lawrence, KS, 6/3/02
More insight from The Onion.
Sent to another group:
"I just wanted to tell you that the presentation went great!
Thanks for letting me borrow that "Meet Your Meat" video.
Three people went veg. and 1 went vegan after seeing it! Then today
this guy came up to me and said, "last night, I was about
to eat this hamburger but then I thought about that video and what
you said yesterday, and I just couldn't do it. I am gonna try to
stop eating meat." I also handed out all of the "Meet
Your Meat" DVDs, and pretty much everyone took [Why Vegan]
and vegan starter kit flyers."
LW, Seattle, WA, 6/8/02
Should We Reference Large Corporations in Our Literature?
Setting Priorities
-Matt Ball
A woman I know is hesitant to pass out Why
Vegans because one of the suggested places for vegan food is
Taco Bell. As you may know, there is currently a boycott of Taco
Bell …
I am familiar with some of the arguments against
Taco Bell, just as I am familiar with the arguments
against the BK
Veggie. I know of many (but not nearly
all) of the other various boycotts as well. There
is no hard and fast rule at Vegan Outreach to explain
why we endorse Taco Bell, except that we believe that
reducing the exploitation of animals is our first
priority.
This may seem hypocritical or inconsistent (i.e.,
"Mustn't we do everything we can for a better
world?"), but there are people who have arguments
/ boycotts against basically everything (I've heard
some regarding entirely vegan companies). It would
be fine if we were close to a socialist, small-company
world, but we're not. A prominent activist once claimed
that animal liberation cannot occur until capitalism
is overthrown. If that is the case, there would be
no hope for the animals.
Ignoring the issue of 'multinationals / free trade
/ exploitation,' given our current society, veganism
won't advance without it being convenient. This will
mean vegan options are widespread, and, almost by
definition, this means the production of vegan items
will be embraced by multinationals.
[Update, November 8, 2004: Jon Camp
adds:
Vegan Outreach's main goal is to reduce suffering.
It is our opinion that today's animal agribusiness
is responsible for a quantity and intensity of suffering
that is virtually impossible to parallel. We think
the best way to reduce this suffering is by encouraging
more and more individuals to eat vegan fare. The more
vegan options that are available, the easier veganism
will seem to many. Moreover, the more individuals
eating vegan fare, the less that animals will suffer
on factory farms.
As you may know, fairly recently, White Wave (which
produces Silk soymilk) was bought out by Dean Foods.
Dean is probably best known as being a producer of
milk products. While some vegans saw this buyout as
a high time to boycott Dean, others saw this differently.
For instance, because of this takeover, Dean has been
able to barrage consumers with TV and print ads for
soy foods that White Wave might not have been able
to afford on their own. Therefore, Dean's role in
this has increased the availability and consumption
of vegan foods, most likely decreasing the overall
amount of animal suffering.
It is our opinion that we can't be perfect. Just about
everything we purchase – if we trace its origins
far enough back – is in some form linked to suffering,
corruption or such. Vegan Outreach's goal is to estimate
what causes the greatest level of suffering and then
to figure out a pragmatic means of actually decreasing
this. At this present moment, we think that promoting
the wide range of currently available vegan options
does more good for reducing suffering than only promoting
companies that pass some form of an ethical bar.]
There are many horrible injustices being perpetrated against humans
in the world today. However, I would contend that only a few of them
warrant being compared to the exploitation of farmed animals. Ignoring
the scale (tens of billions a year), there is absolutely no choice
in the matter for those exploited, such explicit and inherent violence,
widespread sadism, and, ultimately, slaughter.
Perhaps the biggest difference between human and
non-human exploitation today is that so few people
care even the slightest bit for the animals' plight.
For this reason, I think it is an overarching strategic
good for groups dedicated first and foremost to the
animals' interest.
Another "strategic" argument is often made that we should
be building bridges to others of supposedly "like minds,"
such as those concerned with human rights issues. This argument has
been made for years and pursued by many, if not most, animal advocates.
This can seem obvious, because many of the activists in our movement
do care about the other issues. However, in terms of being an ally
or even a receptive audience, other "progressive" movements
have not proven to be fertile grounds for concern about the suffering
of animals (e.g., the conclusion of "E!
Magazine's" stories on vegetarianism was that we should
drop our divisive and controversial (!) focus on the animals, and
instead focus on (human) health and (human) environmental arguments,
as though no group has tried this approach).
This historic unwillingness to look beyond their
species, combined with their small numbers, inclines
me not to tailor our literature to these groups at
the cost of undermining the case for veganism (e.g.,
convenience). I hope that people who read Why Vegan
will eat fewer animals, eventually go vegan, and read
more about other progressive causes. Personally, I
also hope that they adopt my views on other topics
as well. But the most important message remains that
of animal suffering, which is so overwhelmingly vast,
so … absurd … in its cause, and so simple,
relatively speaking, to end.
 |
Vegan Outreach is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to reducing the suffering of farmed animals by promoting informed, ethical eating.
All donations are tax-deductible.
Vegan Outreach
POB 30865, Tucson, AZ 85751-0865 |
|
