(E&A) Nit-Picky Reading - (1)

In reading Section 4 of The Animal Ethics Reader, I'm finding myself marking the margins with questions that might serve as a means to good discussion. So, I thought I'd share.

In David DeGrazia's "Meat-Eating" (p. 177-183), there are 5 things that I'd like to bring to the proverbial 'Round Table
of Discussion'.


1) A simple question of confusion in the sentences: p. 180 - "...consumers do not need the products of factory farms." I am confused because there seems to be this switch between eating meat (the supposed focus of the essay, based on the title), and eating animal products (milk, eggs, etc.). Is this really a subject that can be so easily switched -- are they synonomous in this particular article? Or is he really trying to focus on one over the other? (If so, I'd assume animal products in general -- but then he should change the title.)


2) p. 181 - "...while American consumers frequently hear that factory farming lowers meat prices at the cash register, they are rarely reminded of the hidden cost of tax subsidies." Is this true?

Here's a PETA based website calling for the taxing of meat (like other harmful-to-health luxuries, cigarettes, alcohol, et cetera).

"You don't really pay for meat at the grocery store -- we all pay for it when we pay our taxes. (And we pay for it again in the form of medical care for heart disease patients.) It has been estimated that hamburger meat would cost $35 per pound without subsidies." (taken from student blog)

"Then, in the early 1980s, ethanol subsidies were used to prop up America's struggling corn farmers. Unfortunately, the usual "trickle down" effect of agricultural subsidies is clearly evident. Beef and dairy farmers, for example, have to pay a higher price for feed corn, which is then passed on in the form of higher prices for meat and milk. The average consumer ends up paying the cost of ethanol subsidies in the grocery store." (taken from STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN ON AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT EXTENSION OF ETHANOL SUBSIDIES)

AskQuestions.org's editor offers a different answer: "The nonprofit Environmental Working Group publishes information about the issue, including a database of farm subsidies. According to their Farm Subsidy Database, the top 10 recipients got 72% of the $143.5 billion US taxpayers paid to farmers over the past ten years. And just seven states took in half of that money, because only those states produce the corn, wheat, rice and cotton crops that account for 78% of the subsidies. Meanwhile, two-thirds of American's farmers and ranchers receive no direct government support." However, this is the money going *to* the farmers directly; this does not account for how the subsidies (might) change the price from the slaughter-house to the table.


Answers.com provided this explanation of farm subsidies: "The premises behind agriculture subsidies are that the nation's food supply is too critical to the nation's well-being to be governed by uncontrolled market forces and that to keep a steady food supply, farmers' incomes must be somewhat stable, or many farms would go out of business during difficult economic times. These premises are not accepted by all lawmakers and are the subject of continual debate. Critics argue that the subsidies are exceedingly expensive and do not achieve the desired market stability."

Later in the same article: "In the dairy industry, the government subsidizes milk production by agreeing to purchase milk from processors at a predetermined price. Dairy farmers receive no direct deficiency payments; rather, they receive from their processor a milk check that includes the federal money.

The international community often attacks the U.S. dairy subsidy programs as predatory, although similar and even greater subsidies are given to many dairy farmers in European communities. U.S. dairy producers claim that until the other producing nations drop their subsidies, it would be economic suicide for the United States to lower subsidies.

The government also subsidizes agriculture through nonrecourse loans. With this type of subsidy, the government loans money to farmers using the farmers' future harvest as collateral. The government sets a per-bushel loan rate at which farmers can borrow money prior to harvest, so that they can hold their crops for later sale when the market price rises. The government determines how much a farmer can borrow by multiplying the loan rate (which is usually equal to the government target price for the crop) by the farmer's base acreage (which is determined by calculating the number of acres the farmer planted of a target crop over several years, and multiplying that total by the farmer's average yield). The crop is the collateral for the loan, and the farmer can either repay the loan in cash and sell the crop, or default and forfeit the crop to the government. If the market price is lower than the loan rate or target price, or if the farmer's actual production rate is below the farmer's base acreage rate, the government's only recourse for recouping part of its loan is to take the collateral crop. This subsidy is used primarily for corn and wheat, with a modified form of the program applying to soybeans, rice, and cotton."

Okay, I understand the need to guard the farmers' paychecks -- we need food. The simple (logical?) jump would be to say: Well, then we need to figure out what food we need. However, this is a different question than: Is it true that "...while American consumers frequently hear that factory farming lowers meat prices at the cash register, they are rarely reminded of the hidden cost of tax subsidies"?

((Later on in the same article: "Many environmentalists opposed farm subsidies for different reasons. Corn and wheat programs came under attack by environmental groups. These groups claimed that the base acreage and deficiency payment system encouraged farmers to produce soil-depleting and erosion-prone crops such as corn year after year, even if the market offered a better price for a different crop. Soil depletion and the need to increase average yields led to heavy use of chemical fertilizers, which in turn added to soil and water pollution." -- Would the argument still be made if the farmers were able to rotate crops? How is this an argument against farm subsidies, rather than bad farming techniques?))


Maybe I'm just not looking in the right places, or using the right search terms, but I can't find any actual numbers to back DeGrazia's claim up. (That, or maybe it's just that well hidden... not sure.)((Wouldn't it be better for him to have provided these numbers to save readers the hassle of finding the information for themselves? Or is this a matter of 'common knowledge' that is unknown to me?))


3) p. 181 -- The 'perverse effect on the distribution of food to humans'. What is it that the animals _actually_ eat? (I shall stay away from the obvious effects of Mad Cow -- which points to the fact that these animals are NOT eating grain...)

NotMilk.com (setting aside the obvious bias) offers up one answer: "Nearly seventy-nine percent of cows are fed sodium bicarbonate. Greater than half of the cows in America receive selenium, yeast, and magnesium oxide. More than one third of America's dairy cows take supplements including zinc methionine, niacin, anionic salts, and tallow (rendered fat) from their deceased brothers and sisters.

Forty-eight percent of dairy cows are fed roasted soybeans! ... Thirty-nine
percent receive dried blood from their own [species]...

Fifteen percent receive ground-up fish... Four percent of cows eat feathers...
Two percent of cows are fed pork."

Another site tell me that it's a mixture of grain and alfalfa hay.

The problem is that I'm finding (online) a mix of biological 'what cows
require' and anti-meat 'what they're getting' with no immediate sources.
It's quite obvious what cows _should_ eat... (and bringing in the
presence of Mad Cow, I guess the answer has been 'provided'... -ish.)


4) DeGrazia's counter-argument on pages 181-2 have a nice touch --
the best way to persuade someone of a point is to make them realize
how this is a matter of 'human-interest'. Of course, this requires the
audience to be more leniant to empathy than apathy...

Which leads my thought train to William O. Stephans' "Five
Arguments for Vegetarianism" (p. 201-207), specifically
p. 202 'The feminist argument from sexual politics' and
p. 205 'Patriarchy of pork or feminist fuss?'.

"Carol J. Adams argues that "to talk about eliminating meat is to
talk about displacing one aspect of male control and 
demonstrates the ways in which animals' oppression and
womans' oppression are linked together." Adams calls this 
connection 'the sexual politics of meat'."  -- Knee-jerk reaction:
this seems extremist, and inadvertantly propagates the 'women are
meat' ...thing. Instead of arguing that we (females) *are* seen as
meat, argue for the ways in which we are completely different than
mere meat! If the problem is oppression, then it must be earthlings'
oppression of other earthlings -- I don't see the point in creating
another 'barrier' between the sexes.

5 minutes of thought reaction: I do realize that this is a snippet from
her book, so I can't say that she doesn't offer any solutions because
I haven't read the book.

However, I cannot understand the 'need' to make such a connection,
and argument, about such a thing...

"If the Feminist Argument from Sexual Politics were the only
argument for vegetarianism, it might not sway the hardened 
skeptic who could object that there is no logically necessary
connection between meat eating and patriarchy. Yet Adams' 
argument does, I think, retain an interesting degree of
plausibility in its own right, and it adds another dimension
to the cumulative case for vegetarianism." (p. 205)

I'm not sold that Adams' argument provides anything for the case
for vegetarianism. Frankly, I wasn't even aware that there was a
connection between sexual politics and meat... it raises the
'categorical mistake' red flag in my brain. (But feel free to correct
me!)

Yet, returning back to the original point of 4), the issue of
empathy and apathy returns, this time in the guise of oppression.
Sex-issues aside, the issue of oppression is preceded by the issue
of objectification. If a creature is thought of as an object, there's no
need for emotional attachment. (My grandfather was raised on a
farm back in the 20's - 30's. He told me that whenever you raise
animals for slaughter, you don't name them. If you've got kids, you 
let them pick one out and keep it as their pet -- and keep the rest
separate. ...in this particular frame of context, it's easy to
understand that these were controls to prevent emotional
attachment.)


Lastly, 5) "In general, the following moral rule, although
somewhat vague, is defensible: make every reasonable effort not 
to provide financial support to institutions that cause extensive
unnecessary harm." (p. 180) -- While I see the drive behind this
statement, I cannot stand by it because I'm not entirely sure how
far this would feasibly go. Decide what causes 'extensive
unnecessary harm' and then don't vote/spend your dollar on that
business. If we decide that everything that causes pollution
should not be patroned, we run into a serious problem -- there's
literally *SO MUCH* that causes pollution that's used on an
everyday basis that it becomes a battle to do almost anything...
While I agree with DeGrazia's theory, this might be an
unreasonable demand when applied.