'Julie & Julia' Writer Assaults More Dead Bodies

Capitalizing on the popularity of the movie "Julie & Julia," writer Julie Powell has released "Cleaving," an account of her affair and her training as a butcher.

When I saw the previews for "Julie & Julia," the film based on Powell's book, in which she spends a year making Julia Child's recipes, I had no desire to see the movie. I didn't know anything about Powell and very little about Child, but I figured the movie wouldn't be animal-friendly.

Child, I later learned, scoffed at vegetarianism.

Personally, I don’t think pure vegetarianism is a healthy lifestyle. It's more fear of food—that whole thing that red meat is bad for you. And then there are people who don't eat meat because it's against their morals. Well, there's nothing you can do with people like that. I've often wondered to myself: Does a vegetarian look forward to dinner, ever?

(For the record, I live for food!)

When I saw the sexist poster for the movie, I knew my decision to skip the film was the right one.

It seems cooking dead animals each day for a year wasn't enough for Powell, though. In "Cleaving: A Story of Marriage, Meat, and Obsession," she recounts an affair that threatened her marriage and her decision to learn the "fascinating trade of cutting up meat."

It's about following the seams between the muscles, separating them in the way they're meant to be separated; about the process of ushering a dead animal into something beautiful and nourishing and sustaining.

Powell claims the work helped to focus her mind.

[It] became obvious that butchery is in the same class to me as knitting, or gardening, or certain skills that you learn, like a purl stitch.

I've never cut raw meat. Even when I was a meat-eater, I found the sight -- much less the touch -- of raw meat disgusting. I've never cooked with it. So I'll just have to trust Powell -- and perhaps numerous serial killers -- that slicing flesh is meditative.

Personally I find chopping vegetables to be relaxing, and no one had to die for me to do that.

I wish Powell would view living animals as beautiful. She acts as if the animal died accidentally and now she's making amends for his death. But their deaths are entirely preventable -- if people would start recognizing whom they are eating and stop spinning meat-eating as something done to honor those "who gave their lives." If people such as Powell would stop romanticizing the cooking of murdered animals.

(Image courtesy of Vegan Underground.)

Chicago Sun-Times Criticizes Martosko, CCF

While some newspapers continue to publish absurd rants by the goons at the Center for Consumer Freedom, the Chicago Sun-Times has actually criticized the group -- and specifically David Martosko -- in a recent editorial.

While I don't agree with everything the piece supports -- that somehow we can kill and eat animals in a "humane" way -- I love that a "blue-collar," mainstream newspaper both "outed" Martosko and the CCF's tactics and highlighted the harmfulness of factory farming.

It is a cause that has found common ground among vegetarians and meat eaters alike, united in a conviction that modern animal agriculture is inhumane, bad for the environment and bad for our health.

But first to Martosko.

Martosko is the so-called "director of research" for the CCF, a group run by a PR guru and which is paid for by the meat, dairy, restaurant, fish and high-fructose corn syrup industries, among others.

Martosko sent the Chicago Sun-Times (and I'm sure dozens of other papers, too) an essay about how the only things Americans had to be thankful for this year are dead turkeys -- and how animal-rights activists wanted to take even that away from them.

As I read his snide pieces, I can see him getting off on his cheesy wordplay. He's the kind of guy my mom would call a "blowhard." But I digress.

The Chicago Sun-Times accused him of using a "straw-man" argument -- inserting some easy-to-dispute entity into the argument and then knocking it down.

Martosko's tactic is to demolish a straw man -- the fringe element of the animal-rights movement -- so as to divert attention from a legitimate and increasingly mainstream issue: the way this nation produces and slaughters poultry, pigs and cows.

The editorial then goes on to describe the lives of "broiler chickens" -- chickens raised for their flesh, as opposed to those raised for their eggs.

As journalist Elizabeth Kolbert describes their plight in a recent New Yorker article, they "spend their lives in windowless sheds, packed in with upward of 30,000 other birds and generations of accumulated waste. The ammonia fumes thrown off by their rotting excrement lead to breast blisters, leg sores and respiratory disease. Bred to produce the maximum amount of meat in the minimum amount of time, fryers often become so top-heavy that they can't support their own weight. At slaughtering time, they are shackled by their feet, hung from a conveyor belt, and dipped into an electrified bath known as 'the stunner.'"

The piece then describes the pollution that factory farms create and the health risk posed to people by the overuse of antibiotics in farmed animals.

I commend the Chicago Sun-Times for both criticizing Martosko and the CCF and for taking a stand against factory farming.

While I'm at it, let me also thank Martosko. For if it weren't for his outlandish letter, the Sun-Times likely would not have written an editorial disparaging the very entity -- conventional animal agribusiness -- the CCF seeks to protect.

Turkeys a Different Kind of Centerpiece at Sanctuary Celebrations

While much of the country was looking forward to sinking their teeth into the flesh of dead turkeys recently, some -- more compassionate and aware -- people were celebrating "Turkey Day" with alive turkeys.

Farm Sanctuary and Maryland's Poplar Spring Animal Sanctuary both hosted parties on the Saturday before Thanksgiving, in which animal lovers could interact with turkeys -- and other animals -- and watch them feast on food.

As I read about and viewed photos and a video of the celebration at Poplar Spring, I was struck by the actions of the children who attended.

Deb, who blogs about the sanctuary at "Invisible Voices," posted a video of children following two young pigs around and petting them. She also posted a photo of children watching intently as chickens and turkeys ate.

In addition to the two pigs the children petted, some also got to caress Opal, a turkey who escaped a Virginia slaughterhouse.

Opal sat contentedly while many people showered her with love and offered her handfuls from the feast of grapes and bread and melon and lettuce and corn and apples that made up the turkey's feast. Little kids would crouch down next to her, making them almost the same size, and just sit with their hand resting on her back.

I didn't realize until I started writing this post that Opal may be the same turkey who caught my friend's eye.

Kathy Poynton, whom I met at the 2008 Animal Rights Conference, had a "blast" at Poplar Spring's event and shared some of her photos with me.

One turkey loves to be petted and rather than running over to eat, [she] wanted the little girls to pet [her]. Very, very cute.

I love this photo because it starkly contradicts what one of my aunts said during Thanksgiving dinner: that turkeys look "scary." These girls don't look frightened at all.

In fact, Kathy learned that she was quite loving.

The caretakers told us that before the turkey got to the sanctuary ([she] was saved from a slaughter truck -- long story), [she] slept at the foot of the bed for two weeks and loved to be petted and would also hang out on the couch while everyone was watching TV.

Kathy also "found out while at this sanctuary just how gentle turkeys can be and [that] they have their own personalities."

(Photo of Opal courtesy of "Invisible Voices.")
(All other photos courtesy of Kathy Poynton.)

Chicken Council Balks at Consumer Reports Study

The National Chicken Council has taken issue with a Consumer Reports study of dangerous bacteria in the birds' carcasses.

The independent, nonprofit group found that two-thirds of the 382 carcasses tested "harbored salmonella and/or campylobacter, the leading bacterial causes of foodborne disease."

Campylobacter was in 62 percent of the chickens, salmonella was in 14 percent, and both bacteria were in 9 percent. Only 34 percent of the birds were clear of both pathogens.

The chickens, which were tested at an outside lab, came from the top three chicken processors -- Perdue, Tyson and Foster Farms -- as well as "30 nonorganic store brands, nine organic store brands, and nine organic name brands."

Testing found that the most contaminated carcasses came from Tyson and Foster Farms. "More than 80 percent tested positive for one or both pathogens."

Not surprisingly the National Chicken Council disagrees with the findings, which will be published in January.

NCC also pointed to "a much more comprehensive survey" by USDA that found a lower prevalence of campylobacter and salmonella on raw chicken than reported by Consumer Reports.

Consumer Reports doesn't receive money from companies. The magazine and Web site contain no advertisements because it wants to maintain its objectivity. It doesn't want a conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, on the other hand, regulates the flesh industry. If chickens are found to have a high incidence of nasty bacteria, that makes the USDA look bad.

Which organization's findings would you trust?

Here's another question: Do you know how salmonella and campylobacter end up on the chickens at the grocery store?

The bacteria settle in their intestines, usually without harm, and the chickens contaminate their environment with infected feces. When the birds are slaughtered, intestinal bacteria can wind up on their carcasses.

Of course, intestines also contain feces. I'll let you do the math.

Unfortunately in Consumer Reports' recommendations of what people can do to help avoid ingesting salmonella and campylobacter, the Web site fails to mention the easiest, most obvious method: Go vegetarian.

If you have to worry about "one slipup and you're at risk," why consume that nastiness in the first place?

Turducken: When Killing 1 Animal Just Isn't Enough

I'd been feeling pretty stressed last week. I felt disgusted by how many people were going to unthinkingly, heartlessly eat the bodies of turkeys yesterday.

While part of me wished I could attend a vegan Thanksgiving dinner -- two of my friends were each hosting one -- I also felt that I should celebrate with family.

So Keith and I brought are own vegan food -- mashed potatoes and Gardein Tuscan "Chicken Breasts," with carrots and hummus for an appetizer.

I didn't watch as my uncle carved the turkey and I didn't see the platter of flesh being carried into the dining room. By the time Keith and I warmed up our plates, the flesh had already been passed around the table. Although it was in the center of the table in front of me, I was ok with it.

That is, until the guessing game started: What kind of meat were they eating? I didn't care what it was until I heard them say it was turducken, a combination of turkey, duck and chicken. Were they serious?! Unfortunately, yes. I was sickened.

One murdered turkey wasn't enough? My aunt had to purchase a murdered turkey, a murdered duck and a murdered chicken?

As she so graphically -- yet casually -- explained, a "turducken" is a chicken stuffed inside a duck stuffed inside a turkey. Could that possibly be more disgusting?

Yes. Also discussed was whether my aunt should have ordered the frankenmeat with wings and legs. They decided next time she would.

Keith thought they were joking about the "turducken." He'd heard of it but didn't think anyone actually ate it.

Although I love all animals and don't believe any should be killed for their flesh, I do have an affinity for ducks. Even before I became vegetarian and discovered animal rights, I loved ducks.

I'd go to a nearby town's riverwalk and watch the ducks paddle along the water's current. Each female duck was accompanied by a male. Such a sweet site!

So even if I weren't vegan, the notion of eating a duck would have appalled me and I would have eaten vegetarian at that Thanksgiving.

Although almost everyone agreed the mutant concoction tasted like turkey, they each liked it. My uncle couldn't wait till Monday to tell his office that he had "turducken" for Thanksgiving. Great. Spread the word, so three times as many animals can be killed for people's curious, savage taste buds.

I cringed even more when my other aunt fed her children that nastiness. Ironically her daughter had brought with her a quacking duck toy. So while she loves one duck, she's forced to eat another.

Keith and I agreed that next Thanksgiving will be a completely vegan one for us.

(Photo of turkeys eating at Farm Sanctuary's 2005 "Celebration for the Turkeys" courtesy of Derek Goodwin.)

(Consuela, a chicken, was dumped -- alive -- into a landfill and then rescued. Photographer: Robert Lughai. Watch a short video about her story.)

(Photo of a duck and her ducklings courtesy of Mountain View College.)

Soul Vegetarian East Piles on the Yumminess

Anyone who assumes vegan food is going to taste gross should have been at Soul Vegetarian East on Sunday.

I attended a birthday celebration at this all-vegan restaurant on the South Side of Chicago, and the food was phenomenal.

On Sundays one meal is served to everyone. Called "The Dinner," I think the particulars of the meal change each week.

But we started with a salad with a choice of three dressings. The house specialty was something called "Prince," and it was fantastic! We also got wheat rolls with a hint of buttery flavor.

Our main course consisted of a heaping plate of chicken-fried steak with gravy, mashed potatoes and gravy, corn and greens. I ate every bite and licked the plate -- via my finger -- afterward.

My friend's 73-year-old meat-eating mom couldn't believe how good the chicken-fried steak was. She asked, "Are you sure this place is all vegan?" more than once.

Not much of a dessert person, I ate my piece of apple pie right before I felt stuffed. All this -- plus tax and tip -- for only $15.

Cruelty-free, economical and freakin' delicious -- you can't beat it!

(Photo of our dinner courtesy of John White.)

Gore Walks an Odd Environmental Walk

Former vice president and climate-change guru Al Gore skirted the issue of animal agribusiness during an hourlong discussion in Chicago this morning.

Chicago Public Radio's newsmagazine program "Eight Forty-Eight" today devoted its show to Gore and his new book, "Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Plan."

Though he said he "walks the walk" when asked about his lifestyle, he didn't mention meat consumption, even when given the perfect opportunity to do so.

A Chicago resident asked him this question:

"How do you reconcile your lifestyle and using the kind of energy you use [...] versus the campaign you have for the global warming?"

His answer:

"I walk the walk and don't simply talk the talk.

He went on to talk about installing new windows, lights, solar panels and geothermal heat pumps in his house.

But host Alison Cuddy asked him to recommend what the average person -- who can't afford solar panels and geothermal instruments -- can do to help ease climate change. She particularly mentioned high school students, who had submitted questions when told Gore would be on the program. What could a high school student do to help the cause?

That would have been the perfect time for Gore to tell listeners to reduce their consumption of meat. (Gore isn't vegan or vegetarian, so I would have been surprised to hear him recommend those options.) What an easy change a high school student could make! After all, animal agribusiness spews more greenhouse gases than does all forms of transportation combined.

Instead Gore talked more about installing energy-efficient windows and solar panels, things irrelevant to a teenager.

He didn't even mention one's eating habits when a caller specifically asked about factory farms. A caller from Chicago erroneously suggested "family farms" don't release methane gas. Gore's response was off-base.

"Factory farming and industrial agriculture is [sic] a very significant source of global-warming pollution. By taking animals off the land, we have made manure into a toxic waste because it's much more acidic and can't be used as fertilizer, and it threatens the air and water in the communities where it's located."

He went on to talk about soil quality, crop rotation and sustainable agriculture.

First, "family farms" are a euphemism. The people who support animal agribusiness and conventional (ie. non-organic) agriculture are families with farms. Although the phrase conjures idyllic images of rolling hills with happy cows, pigs and chickens who die of old age, that's not the reality.

Second, animal products are cheap because of the factory-farm system. If the system is changed, people would still need to reduce their consumption because the supply would be reduced and the prices would increase.

So why not make that recommendation right now? Yes, I'd rather Gore told people to go vegan or even vegetarian. But at the very least he could recommend reducing their consumption of animal products.

Gore may "walk to the walk" on environmentalism, but it's only to the beat of the recommendations he chooses to follow.

(Image courtesy of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.)