Not a sexy title, but not bad. I couldn’t come up with a better one.
This is one of the most important articles I have ever written.
It posits a plan to seriously wound Big Agriculture.
It lays out a gameplan for preventing the deaths of millions of animals.
And it proposes a broad economic and political coalition that could make it a reality.
Most animal protection campaigns are knee jerk responses to one horror or another. They are driven by immediacy of need or media publicity or emotional shock or public outrage.
We seldom have, or take, the opportunity to plot a course of action solely on the number of animals that might be saved.
Impacting animal agriculture even modestly will affect the most animals, as the Animal Holocaust conducted by agriculture industries murders 50 BILLION animals every year.
The number is so huge we have difficulty comprehending it. But it works out to a MILLION animals being murdered every ten minutes, around the clock, 24/7!
Fifty thousand died while you read this much of this post!
One hundred thousand if you are a slow reader!
That is more than all the dogs and cats rescued in America in a year!
My personal preference in dealing with Big Ag and the slaughter industry would be to sabotage livestock trucks, burn down slaughterhouses and shoot the owners. No such action is either legal or effective, however, as others would merely fill the vacuum and I would be in prison.
To have an impact on the number of animals being slaughtered requires driving down consumption and driving up the costs to consumers. As meat, dairy, and egg prices increase, consumption drops.
Most proposals that would raise the cost of consumers are politically impossible to institute. Taxing meat, for example, to offset the public healthcare costs of cardiovascular disease, is only logical and reasonable. However, it would be politically impossible to levy such a tax, as consumers and the industry are too much of a political impediment.
Like most animal activists and environmentalists, I have been active in the fight against GMOs. GMOs are Genetically Modified Organisms. Chemical giant Monsanto has patented GMO corn, soybeans, and other grains. The purpose of GMOs is to increase the yield per acre of crops, to protect them from insects, to increase their sugar and oil contents, to prolong ripening time to allow for long distance transport and increased shelf life, etc. All of these mean more money to farmers, and Monsanto sells them the seed.
It’s all about money. It’s all about profits. It is capitalism in action.
Environmentalists are opposed to the introduction of GMOs into the wild because very little is known of their impact on either flora or fauna. Some GMOs designed to poison insects that feed upon them are now being consumed by insects that have developed an ability to withstand the GMO poisons.
Consumers are opposed to GMOs because there are no requirements that foods containing GMOs are labeled. Big Ag opposes labeling because most consumers are wary of genetically modified “Frankenfoods.” There is little doubt consumers would reject GMO foods if they were told which foods they are. If labeling were required, Monsanto would be hit hard by farmers rejecting their GMO seed.
Organic farmers and organic food producers are opposed to GMOs because ithey greatly undercut their ability to bring natural foods to market competitively.
The conventional wisdom has been that even if labeling were to be required, Monsanto would still have a huge market for GMO seed used to grow animal feed.
Escalating the campaign to require labeling of directly consumed GMOs to one that requires indirectly consumed GMOs be disclosed would turn the consumer campaign into one that could save millions of animal lives by derailing GMOs being used for animal feed. If animal growers and feed lots have to buy non-GMO grain, the cost of meat production will increase. Those increased costs will be seen in the marketplace in higher prices per pound of meat, and higher prices for eggs and dairy as well. Higher consumer prices mean less consumer demand, less consumption, and fewer animals slaughtered.
And Monsanto’s profits would plummet.
The most effective, and politically feasible, proposal is to require truth in labeling of ALL food. We would require it across the board so that we can put together the broadest possible coalition of consumers, consumer advocates, family farmers, environmentalists, childrens’ and seniors’ advocates, organic farmers and producers, health-conscious shoppers, etc.
Such a requirement would dictate that everything fed to cattle, pigs, chickens, etc, and everything injected or otherwise introduced into their bodies would have to be disclosed. That would mean GMOs, antibiotics, steroids, hormones, vaccines, chemicals, the corpses of other animals, etc.
We would join forces with those fighting against GMOs and those advocating for GMOs to be labeled.
But we go further, in that we want GMOs that are indirectly consumed by humans to be labeled as well as those that are directly consumed.
Most corn, for example, is not consumed directly by people, but by farm animals. Humans only eat about 6% of the corn produced, animals eat over 60%. The rest is consumed indirectly by people in corn syrup, corn starch, etc., or is made into ethanol or used in other industrial applications.
Unlikely allies in this fight should be family farmers. Big Agriculture, through factory farming, has threatened the very existence of the family farm. Small Mom-and-Pop operations are unable to effectively compete with Big Ag in raising livestock. Big Ag feeds their cattle 17% of the cattle they raise! Slaughterhouse by-products are turned into cattle feed. Big Ag ingests their cattle with growth steroids, hormones, super antibiotics, and cheap GMO feed. The result is a bigger, cheaper, unhealthier animal that is produced by Big Ag than the one raised on a family farm. By depriving Big Ag of the ability to sell their meat to consumers without disclosing what is in it will help level the playing field for America’s family farmers
The state of Vermont recently passed a law requiring that foods containing GMOs be labeled. Vermont is perhaps the most politically courageous and enlightened state in the Union.
Vermont is the only state to have withstood the bribery by Monsanto and Big Agriculture. In every other state where liberals have tried to require labeling, a flood of bribes from lobbyists fronting for Monsanto and Big Ag have managed to kill all such proposals.
That Vermont has done so is a major victory. Now, Monsanto is leading a legal assault on the law, and has filed a lawsuit against the state of Vermont. Joining Monsanto is a list of corporate plaintiffs who do not want the people of Vermont to know what is in the food they buy, eat, and feed to their children.
By proposing an even broader attack on Monsanto and Big Agriculture we can forge an even broader coalition, relying heavily on the zeal, tenacity, and dedication of animal activists.
This is a battle we can win.
Liberals control the Democratic party at the local level, which is where this fight will be waged. It will be conducted state-by-state, at the most local level of political trench warfare: in the Democratic county central committees, in local Democratic volunteer organizations, in precinct meetings, union halls, church basements, and on college campuses.
At this level of political involvement, the bribes of Monsanto and Big Business are not an issue. The bribe money doesn’t trickle this far down to influence local Democrats.
This could be the defining issue in liberals re-taking control of the Democratic party from the Wall Street crowd, which currently owns most of the Democratic leadership from the president on down.
And if liberals see this as providing them with such an opportunity, the animals will benefit, the environment will benefit, consumers will control the marketplace, and the corporate state will have been weakened.
Requiring Truth In Labeling will almost certainly force farmers to stop most GMO production of corn, with a resulting increase in animal feed costs, translating into increased meat, dairy, and egg costs to consumers.
Even a few percentage point decline in consumer demand would mean a reduction of millions of slaughtered animals.
A caveat here. Reducing the number of animals slaughtered doesn’t mean they will be set free. It just means their deaths will be delayed.
If enough are delayed, fewer are bred to die.
Every animal in the food system is going to die a violent death.
None can be saved.
None will be set free.
If the whole world became vegan tomorrow, every animal controlled by Big Ag would still be murdered for whatever money they can get, even if it meant turning the animals into fertilizer or rendering them for soap and cosmetics.
The only animals we can save are the ones that won’t be born.
If there are more animals than there is demand for their corpses, breeding is curtailed. The ones born are murdered, the ones not born are the ones we save.
And we must save billions from the horrors of The Animal Holocaust.