The nutritional, environmental and, yes, ethical implications of our diets

The Sunday, June 25, The New York Times Business section (page 2) has an article that discusses the Whole Foods decision to stop selling live lobsters and tells us of a new invention called the "CrustaStun," which electrocutes crabs or lobsters in a matter of seconds. See http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/business/yourmoney/25goods.html for that article.

"The Week in Review" section, also includes an article, on its cover, inspired by the Wholefoods decision. Titled "It Died for Us," the piece, by Times restaurant critic Frank Bruni, takes a broader look at the raising of consumer consciousness with regard to the treatment of animals sold for human food.

Bruni's piece opens by questioning whether oysters eaten alive feel pain, then comments:

"These questions seem less ridiculous than they once did. This month Whole Foods announced that it would no longer sell live lobsters, saying that keeping them in crammed tanks for long periods doesn't demonstrate a proper concern for animal welfare. The Chicago City Council recently outlawed the sale of foie gras to protest the force-feeding of the ducks and geese that yield it. California passed a similar law, which doesn't take effect until 2012, and other states and cities are considering such measures.

"All of these developments dovetail with a heightened awareness in these food-obsessed times of what we eat: where it came from, what it was fed, how it was penned, how it perished. If the success of best sellers like 'Fast Food Nation' and 'The Omnivore's Dilemma' and stores like Whole Foods is any indication, more Americans are spending more time mulling the nutritional, environmental and, yes, ethical implications of their diets.

"They prefer that their beef carry the tag 'grass fed,' which evokes a verdant pasture rather than a squalid feed lot, and that their poultry knew the glories of a 'free range,' a less sturdy assurance than many people believe.

"But these concerns are riddled with intellectual inconsistencies and prompt infinite questions. Are the calls for fundamental changes in the mass production of food simply elitist, the privilege of people wealthy enough to pay more at the checkout counter? Does fretting about ducks give people a pass on chickens? Does considering the lobster allow seafood lovers to disregard the tuna?"

Great questions! And Michael Pollan, author of ''The Omnivore's Dilemma" is quoted:

''Foie gras and lobster are not at the heart of the real tough issues of animal welfare, which are feed lots and pigs and cattle and chickens and how billions of animals are treated....On the other hand, the fact that we're having this conversation at all -- that we're talking about ethics in relation to what we're eating every day -- strikes me as a very healthy thing."

The article also shares thoughts from Jay Weinstein, author of a new book ''The Ethical Gourmet'." We read:
"While the lives of 'free-range' chickens are hardly ideal, the lives of other chickens are even worse, Mr. Weinstein said. The birds' feet are lacerated by the wire they are forced to stand on, while their beaks are clipped so they can't peck at each other in the tight quarters they occupy. He questioned whether any of that was less offensive than the force feeding of ducks."

The article also includes quotes by a chef, Eric Ripert of 'Le Bernardin', who kills lobsters with a knife before boiling them, to save them suffering. But we read:
"But where do the restaurant's lobsters await their appointment with the knife? For as many as 24 hours, as many as 40 lobsters inhabit a container that's just 3-feet long by 1-foot wide, he said. It doesn't sound much comfier than a Whole Foods holding tank."

Ripert is quoted:
"When you think about treating animals in a humane way, it's unlimited. If you start with the lobster, then next month you should think about the clam, and then you have to think about the fish, which is suffocating outside the water after we catch it.''

The reporter, Bruni, adds:
"Even before it suffocates, a hooked or netted fish flails in a doomed effort to avoid its fate. The process is traumatic enough that David Pasternack, a fisherman and co-owner of the Manhattan seafood restaurant Esca, noted that 'you can see the struggle in the flesh of a fish.'''

Bruni then asks, "Does that struggle deserve as much heed as the grisly realities of the abattoir?"

He answers:
"Maybe not. Ample scientific evidence suggests that various creatures have varying levels of consciousness."

He quotes Pollan again, ''There really is a difference between the sentience of an oyster and the sentience of a lobster and the sentience of a cat. These lines really can be drawn.''

And Bruni writes:
"And advocates of animal welfare argue that some lines are better than none, that inconsistencies are better than inaction."

A nice comment -- of course inconsistency is better than inaction. The article, however, might inspire animal advocates to question drawing lines between animals when there are so many nutritious vegetarian choices available. You can read the full article on line at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/weekinreview/25bruni.html and send letters to the editor to letters [at] nytimes.com

Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Remember that shorter letters are more likely to be published, and that it is important not to use any of my phrases or those from other alerts. Sample letters (or alerts that recommend specific talking points -- much the same as sample letters) are counterproductive when dealing with the media since many papers will avoid publishing letters that appear to be part of a campaign. Yet still, many letters about the same article show great reader interest in the topic, and will ensure that some letters are published and also that the topic gets more coverage. So it is important to write -- but to write short original notes.

Most importantly, please keep an eye out for related articles in your local media -- you might use any article on food as a jump-off point for an animal friendly letter. Some of the smaller papers publish close to 100% of the letters they receive, so why not write?


(DawnWatch is an animal advocacy media watch that looks at animal issues in the media and facilitates one-click responses to the relevant media outlets. You can learn more about it, and sign up for alerts at http://www.DawnWatch.com. You are encouraged to forward or reprint DawnWatch alerts but please do so unedited -- leave DawnWatch in the title and include this tag line.)