Finally … almost July 1, 2012

Many people have been waiting for that date to come around since 2004. Why? It is the date that California steps up to the plate and bans the production of foie gras, a so-called delicacy made from the livers of ducks and geese who have been force-fed. Moreover, being a pioneer in anti-cruelty legislation, the state also bans the sale of this inherently cruel product.

In some ways this is a tough blog for me to write, as there are loads of people and organizations who played a major role in this fight for compassion, and it would be difficult to adequately cover them all. But this is just my perspective on this historic bill as someone who worked to pass it.

From 2000-2006, I was running an organization called Viva!USA and we had a long campaign to stop the sale of duck “meat” and feathers. We conducted investigations of factory farms across the U.S. and got corporations to make changes.

In the fall of 2003, Animal Protection and Rescue League (APRL) released their investigations of Sonoma Foie Gras, one of the few producers of foie gras in the country. (APRL also conducted investigations at Hudson Valley Foie Gras and foie gras farms in France.) 

 

The ALF played a role in some amazing outreach by exposing to the public what foie gras was about.

In 2003, I was approached by Teri Barnato, who was the head of the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR), to see if Viva!USA would be interested in joining AVAR and Los Angeles Lawyers for Animals (specifically Orly Degani) to introduce legislation to stop the force feeding of ducks and geese for foie gras.

 

Teri was able to secure an author for the foie gras bill (Senator John Burton) by the end of 2003, and we were also joined by Farm Sanctuary. 

Now, my time spent at the Capitol, up until this point, was working to stop bills (mostly one that would allow the sale and importation of kangaroo skins into the state), but this was my first real involvement in passing legislation.  Although I strongly encourage participation in local legislation (county, city and state), I found it to be too uncomfortable for me – too full of compromises.

One of these compromises was the delay in enacting the bill that would ban foie gras. Instead of taking effect the next year, they allowed a 7-year phase-out period. Now, this was a deal the legislators made – not us. But I saw this as our insurance policy. If activists couldn’t get foie gras production shut down before then, by 2012, the law would make it happen. And this is where we are almost at now!

When you work on legislation, every committee hearing can make or break your bill. You could have worked for months and then in one hearing, it could be all over. All of the work, support and change you were trying to make would be gone in one hearing – possibly due to a single vote.  And, not surprisingly,  it is also very political – sometimes it is more a matter of how well legislators get along, or how they  have voted on each other’s bill. Yikes – too much for me. I prefer corporate campaigns. So to people, like my friend and colleague Jennifer Fearing (California State Director for HSUS), who has been incredibly successful at the Capitol for the animals, more power to you.

One of the most important components of the foie gras bill came from the author himself: SB 1520, as mentioned earlier, bans not just the force feeding of birds, but the actual sale of foie gras – a prohibition added by John Burton! Of course, we were in complete agreement and elated. Eventually, as the bill got closer to getting to the desk of the Governor, more of the larger groups started to pitch in. And then on the Governor’s desk – we wondered and worried.

One of the things that I hear now (when the bill is close to coming into effect) and I heard when we were working to pass it, was this ridiculous concept of the “slippery slope”  -- that once California banned foie gras, they might go on to prohibit other animal cruelties. As much as I wish there were indeed a slippery slope, the arguments made by those who profit off the suffering of these gentle birds should be called out for what they are saying. It is utter nonsense.

It was easy to remind the legislators that they are the ones passing the laws, and as much as I wanted them to ban the sale of animal products, were they really going to do it?

But those who profit at the expense of others (whether it be for animal products or chocolate) will say what they will to make them seem like the victims. To some it seems to be more about arrogance than anything else.

To have chefs rallying to be allowed to sell a product of cruelty and having parties is really unbelievable. I mean, really – having a party to say goodbye to a luxury item? As an activist I have heard the original quip “get a life” (when all I am trying to do is save some), but those who have parties for a luxury item put on a cracker?  Apparently the people paying a high price for this delicacy of despair have *nothing* better to do with their money? 

Talk about mixed-up priorities. 

I would call it selfish and ignorant only because these people must know and understand the suffering of the birds, because, otherwise, why would they be at a party to protest a law?

And that is something I feel like people forget is that this is indeed a law. Legislators and Governor Swarzenegger (who I would say was not an animal-friendly governor) signed it into law.

In a state like California, where we have communities that do not have access to healthy foods and many others that go hungry, you have to wonder about chefs crying over a luxury item. 

Something like this really makes you question where the priorities are in this country. It makes me shudder.

But for now, I will join others in sharing this long-awaited date. I will look at the ducks on the lakes and ponds and thank activists around the globe for their work in helping these precious, gentle birds have one less cruelty inflicted upon them.

A huge shout out to everyone who made calls and sent their letters and emails to legislators when we were working to pass SB 1520.  Groups big and small helped out in the end. Thanks also to those activists (and groups like APRL) who continue to expose the conditions suffered by factory farmed ducks and the cruelty behind foie gras. 

Photo at the top:  Quincy lives at Woodstock Farm Sanctuary.

Vegan Venting

I am going to go off a bit on a vegan rant, I admit. Recently, when in a vegan restaurant, I overheard one young woman ask another, “Why do vegans eat foods that look like animal products?” This is similar to a refrain we’ve all heard: “Why do vegans eat products that taste like ‘meat’?”

This way of thinking shows how shortsighted people can be and why even those who are not hostile to veganism perhaps just don’t get it. This lack of understanding is why I believe WE need to be there to explain our food choices when we hear such nonsense.

It reminds me of a meeting where a “cattle” rancher asked us vegans why we opposed castration of cows and pigs. He was shocked that it was because of the suffering! First of all, he didn’t think they suffered, and secondly, he thought we were upset that it made them less masculine!

People just seem to have a hard time accepting that many vegans work on a simple premise of not wanting to cause or participate in suffering, and that we are willing to make changes in our lives and not just talk about how eating animals truly upsets us.

Many vegans stop eating animals not because they didn’t like the taste of cows or chicken or fish, but because they feel that any suffering inflicted upon animals is wrong and the only right thing to do is to stop eating them. When a vegan eats a mock “meat,” they are able to enjoy a very similar texture and flavor—often the same spices are even used to season animal-based “meat.” 

I stopped (to the best of my young abilities) eating chickens, cows, pigs, etc., after learning who I was eating, because I didn’t want to. However, I definitely loved cheese (and now I love the vegan varieties – Follow Your Heart and Sheese!).  

I think vegans should be open with non-vegans if they liked “meat” or cheese, as I think it is more powerful to tell someone you gave it up because it wasn’t worth the suffering you were causing. It shows them the strength of your convictions. 

And another smaller rant. Why do non-vegans sometimes call the food we eat gross? They think tofu is gross? What about eating the veins off a chicken leg? Really? That isn’t absolutely disgusting? I mean, I think we can say these things in a way that makes people think versus feel defensive.

The whole point of my wee rant is to say that we as vegans should speak up when we hear this kind of talk – in a compassionate way of course. It reminds me of the The Smiths song that says, “It takes strength to be gentle and kind.” 

It really is important for others to understand that many people stop eating animals because they don’t want to take a life and contribute to more suffering, so the next time you come across someone who truly doesn’t get it, speak up – gently and kindly, of course!

In Honor of Marti: the Suffragist Movement, Labor Unions and a Little Brown Dog

This blog entry is dedicated to the memory of my dear friend and Food Empowerment Project supporter Marti Kheel, who passed away late last year. Marti and I were both passionate about the importance of the interconnections between the issues of animal exploitation and the rights of women and workers, especially knowing that their combination truly made history.

For those of you who support Food Empowerment Project, one of the reasons you probably do so is because of the connections we make between various causes for justice. A number of years ago, I was able to spend time with a long-time animal rights activist who has been active both in England and in the US. He told me about an important episode in the anti-vivisection movement. (Vivisection is the live experimentation on animals, and anti-vivisectionists are those of us who oppose this practice.)

The reason why I love this story is the mix of people who were involved. Many might have had their own reasons for acting – but the power of their passions is why this is now a part of history.

This is a much longer and more detailed and important story than I am giving space to. My main goal is to make sure people know of it and understand its importance.

The story begins in 1902 in England. Louise Lind-af-Hageby and Leisa Schartau enrolled at the London School of Medicine for Women with the intent of learning about what went on in vivisection laboratories. Though the college itself did not allow vivisection, guest speakers would occasionally lecture on the subject and demonstrate animal experimentation.

During a guest lecture, the two women witnessed the vivisection of a brown dog and noticed that the dog had “an unhealed wound” on his side, which indicated he had recently been used for another experiment. They marked this in their diaries. They eventually chose not to pursue a degree and took their information about the multiple experiments on the same dog to the head of the National Anti-Vivisection Society, who determined it was in violation of the Cruelty to Animals Act of 1876, which specified that “a vivisected animal could not be revived after one experiment and used for another.”

The vivisector was angry about this accusation and sued for libel. There was a court case and it was decided the vivisector had been defamed. But after the trial, the public had not only been educated about vivisection, but had been awakened by this case, and in 1906 a memorial in honor of the brown dog was erected at a park in the London neighborhood of Battersea. One of the cool things about the Battersea area is that Battersea General Hospital did not support or engage in any vivisection. How many hospitals do we have like that today? It makes me wonder if the anti-vivisection movement has moved forward or regressed.

Additionally, it's important to note that Battersea was considered to be a very progressive area. Many of the people in support of the efforts for the brown dog were unionists (workers supporting labor unions) and suffragists (mostly women advocating for a woman's right to vote).

On November 20, 1907, a group of thirty students from University College and Middlesex Hospital purchased a massive hammer and crow bar and set out to destroy the statute of the brown dog. They were stopped by the police, who were tipped off. These students also started to attend suffragette meetings in an attempt to disrupt them – even though not all the people in attendance were opposed to vivisection. It is believed that the students started to view the anti-vivisectionists and the suffragist’s movement as one and the same.

The male medical students, known as "Brown Doggers" and who supported using animals for experimentation, began once again to turn their aggression against the statue of the brown dog, which to many represented a victim – their victim.

They began organizing demonstrations, one of which was in Trafalgar Square, but they were pushed back by “groups of workingmen.”

These protests involving those who were against the brown dog statue and those striving to protect him went down in history as riots. Yes, riots in order to protect the statute of a brown dog.

A majority of the suffragists were from more affluent backgrounds, and they were typically at odds with the working class (the unionists). Many women in the working class (just like now) were trying to figure out how to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads, and so to hear these women talk of “a vote” seemed like asking for a luxury. According to one writer, “Working men jeered at the suffragettes in order to protect their own livelihood and restricted sphere of social influence, and when they turned out in Battersea to defend the brown dog, they were protecting themselves against the vivisector’s knife.”

Even though these working class men did not support the suffragists, they could relate to the exploitation of the animals, feeling themselves exploited by those in power. Perhaps the young medical students (who from my reading have all been men and were also typically from affluent backgrounds) saw this emotion for the brown dog as a threat to science.

Women at this time were being treated as property and were questioning their own rights in society, which of course was a direct threat to men. When they fought for their rights, they were jailed and force fed while in prison. It's easy to recognize the similarities between how these women were mistreated and the mistreatment of animals then and now. (If you want a quick history lesson on how suffragettes were treated in the US, watch the 2004 film Iron Jawed Angels.)

Both the workers and the women were able to identify with the suffering of not only the brown dog, but all animals imprisoned and treated as commodities because they themselves were not held in high regard in society at the time.

I am retelling this story as a way to show the importance of the interconnections of what I do and talk about for Food Empowerment Project. I'm convinced that we are stronger when we work to connect issues of injustice, and when we work together, we can open more minds to fight the oppressors and free the oppressed.

What happened to the statue of the brown dog? Eventually it was taken down due to the turmoil it was causing, but many decades later, a new one was erected.

Once again, I relate this time in history in honor of Marti Kheel, who used her passion for justice and compassion to make the connections we all need to continue to make to create a better world for all living beings and our planet. We miss you and love you, Marti.

I want to thank Kim Stallwood for introducing me to this amazing piece of history and the time he shared with me when he was in the states. And I don’t find him to be so grumpy.

Photo credit: National Anti-Vivisection Society (UK)

Putting the Focus on Community Input

One of the first projects that Food Empowerment Project took on was to look at access to healthy foods in communities of color and low-income communities in Santa Clara County, home of the well-to-do Silicon Valley. We surveyed more than 200 locations that sold food (non-restaurants and fast food), such as grocery stores, convenience stores and liquor stores.

In August of 2010, we released the results in our report, Shining A Light on the Valley of Heart’s Delight: Taking a Look at Access to Healthy Foods in Santa Clara County’s Communities of Color and Low-Income Communities.

In our report, we gave only a few recommendations. The reason for this is because we believe that those living in impacted communities are the ones who should decide what they want – not outside agencies or governments. My concern has been that not listening to the communities is why some initiatives have failed.

As an all-volunteer organization (at this time), we do not have the in-house expertise to conduct the type of work necessary to carry out what would be the next phase of our project, so we put out a call for assistance.

While waiting for a researcher, we were lucky to have support from professors and students from Santa Clara University, who used our data to create GIS maps of impacted districts.

Eventually, we garnered the support of Stanford University’s Food Summit. They paired us with a former student, who was able to work with a professor to decide the best direction we should go in for this effort. Among their important feedback was that focus groups were the best next step.

We created a plan for Phase three (which we shared with you at the end of the year).

In addition to having the right questions and the right plan was having a great facilitator. While attending an event put on by a group in East San Jose (Somos Mayfair), I was able to see Lisa Castellanos (whom I had already met) in action; she had all of the right skills, and we were thrilled she was eager to assist!

From there we gathered a great team of volunteers to take notes and videotape the focus groups. Each participant from the community was paid $50 for their time (2 hours) and fed a free vegan meal – vegan tamales, rice and beans.

We did three focus groups with community organizations in San Jose located in some of the most impacted areas in Santa Clara County: Somos Mayfair, Sacred Heart Community Services and CommUniverCity.

Although policy makers at the city, county and state levels were all contacted, none of them attended even briefly to show their support. I had met with them previously, and all had expressed an interest in the issue. Needless to say, I was very disappointed. All I was hoping they or an aide would do would be attend the events and say a few words as to why the community members were important and why they were serious about working on this issue. At least one city council member did respond to express an interest.

We will release a report later with our findings, but just a preview (keep in mind these were all conducted in Spanish):

• One focus group discussed a particular store in their community (not a convenience or liquor store) where some of the food was moldy. It made them wonder if the store’s management believed that’s all their customers are worth.

• In every focus group, it was noted that when one neighbor would go to the store they would check around to see if anyone else needed anything. Neighbors often borrowed food from each other without any type of ledger being kept on who owed whom what. This made me start thinking: is this out of need or because of culture? I can’t imagine ever asking ANY of my neighbors to assist or even asking them to borrow any food item. Is it because I have only ever lived in apartments, or is it because I have never truly needed to? They referred to this as “trueque”: a type of bartering based on mutuality and social expectation.

• Participants emphasized the close relationship they have with food: to taste, to feel, to smell. They clearly care about what they feed their families, which is counter to the misconception many people have about communities of color: that they don't care what their kids eat and prefer to give them fast, easy food. On the contrary, all the participants talked about their weekly shopping excursions to find the best, freshest products. They are, as Lisa Castellanos puts it, domestic strategists, and they were excited to share how they make meal preparation miracles happen every day. This is important information as many have suggested a possible solution could be food-delivery services, such as those offered by Safeway, which simply may not be successful in these communities.

• In every focus group at least one person was familiar with what vegan meant, and in two of the focus groups, a parent had a child who was vegan for ethical reasons. Again, this type of information and their interest in vegan food preparation would not have been revealed were it not for the fact that we were asking these types of questions.
  
  
• As we also asked about access to vegan foods such as soymilk and “meat” alternatives, there was discussion about lactose intolerance and also a desire to have more options.

Food Empowerment Project wants to thank all of our donors who support us, as this was a costly and important aspect of our work, and we could not have done it without your financial support.

We also want to give a big thanks to Stanford University’s Food Summit, Flacos, Antonella Dewell, Katie Gera, Lisa Castellanos, Thoi Pham, Mark Hawthorne, Jessica Sanchez (and her mom), Nicole Latham, Martin Saunders, Iris Stewart-Frey, Katherine Connors, Emily Francis, and all of the community groups that participated: Somos Mayfair, Sacred Heart Community Services and CommUniverCity.

We look forward to sharing our results with you!