To those who have followed this process:

    On Wednesday night, the Brookline Town Meeting approved our resolution 164-3. To all of the Town Meeting members: Thank you. 

The thing is, we are not at all done. We have raised awareness about the issue, yes, but we must still do more if we hope to make a lasting impact. If all goes well, this will serve as the launching pad to continue raising awareness about the cruelties associated with the conventional food industry, and ultimately effect the change we are working for right now. 

      Fortunately, this cause (and the use of crates in veal husbandry) has received a bit of media attention in the past couple of days. (See coverage from the Boston Herald, Brookline TAB, and the Brookline Patch under “Local Press”). 

 Next up: Passing House Bill 815. Let’s do this. 

When discussing animal welfare issues, I generally try to use rational arguments rather than emotional descriptions. Looking back on this process, I think that this preference was reflected in the points I brought up. 

Now, though, I think it is important to remember what exactly we are talking about when we say “veal crate,” and what this article would be addressing if passed. 

This is what we’re talking about. This calf. The thousands just like him, living in this type of crate for 16-18 weeks at a time. We can intellectualize it, debate it, discuss it all we want. And that is appropriate, as this type of initiative will be a reflection on Brookline as a whole.

However, in the back of our minds, we must keep this image - this being - as a reference point.

Here we are, in the final stretch of this journey.

The Brookline Town Meeting will be voting on this article in the coming week, taking into account the multiple motivations for the proposal such  as the impact of antibiotics and animal disease on human health, local business’ inability to sell currently-stigmatized veal, and Brookline’s precedent of leadership in promoting responsible consumption. 

One factor remains unlisted, however.

I would be deluding myself if I thought that people would stop eating meat altogether. 

That doesn’t mean, however, that we must accept the current factory farming system as is, with the inhumane practices that have become default. 

Case in point: chicken producers Bell & Evans and Mary’s Chickens, whose efforts to reduce chickens’ stress pre-slaughter were profiled in today’s NY Times. No one is forcing these businesses to research new methods of making the killing process less stressful, but they took it upon themselves to do it anyway. It could be because they think it is just the ethical thing to do. More likely, though, they see it as being in their best interest business-wise to portray their product in a more humane way.

Of course, this will only pay off if the consumer actually responds to changes like this. As the owner of Bell & Evans predicts, “consumers would come to demand birds slaughtered in the new way, which would force the industry to gradually switch over.” That will only happen, though, if people know to demand it.

It should be clear how this relates to veal calves. People point out that veal calves are just a byproduct of the dairy industry, with male calves serving little purpose but to be used for beef or veal. And that’s absolutely true. That said, inhumane conditions have no place in continuing the industry, and it makes little sense to bind them together. Simply put, just as chickens can be gassed before being killed to minimize their suffering, veal calves can be raised freely and in groups to minimize their own suffering.

It is up to the consumer to demand this, whether that consumer is the individual buying at the grocery store or the restaurant buying from a supplier. In an ideal world, this article would prompt such demands. 

Notice: 

With the Brookline Health Department and Personnel Subcommittee’s help, we have changed the language and goals of this article.

 As it is now, the resolution instead calls for restaurants and grocery stores to stop selling crated veal (as opposed to all veal, which was called for originally). 

We made this change for two main reasons. 

1. There is already a precedent for addressing cruel confinement. Arizona, California, Michigan, Colorado, and Maine have all passed ballot measures to ban the use of veal crates in animal rearing, while the UK and EU have done so as well. Currently, there is a similar measure pending in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. By focusing this article on crated veal, we would provide support to this state bill by showing that citizens on the municipal level care about this issue. 
2. Factory farming involves cruel practices that extend beyond the veal industry. Once we remove crates from the equation, there is little difference in cruelty between veal calf treatment and that of other animals. Therefore, we decided to take this initiative in steps by first addressing crates, and addressing other forms of cruelty later on - perhaps concerning veal calves, but not necessarily so. 

We hope this change not only strengthens the resolution’s message, but portrays it as a reasonable first step to state-wide reform. 

As always, feel free to contact us if you have any questions about this. 

To those who are looking to find more information about veal calves and warrant article #21: feel free to reference the resources at the top of this page. 

And, as always, if your question is not addressed on this site, you are more than welcome to email me and I will answer promptly. (See “Contact Us”.)

Some people ask: “How can you feel justified in forcing your beliefs onto the entire community?”

I would be seriously remiss to ignore this question. And I did think about it - a lot. My conclusion? That not only is this resolution in no way an imposition of my beliefs on anyone, but in its current form, it has no potential to be an imposition in the future.  

Here’s why.

1) First and foremost: this is a non-binding resolution. Although this project’s goal is to inspire individuals to seek more information about their food sources and ultimately change their eating habits, no one is forced to abide by what the resolution proposes. If people decide, “Hey, I don’t want to know about what I’m eating,” that will be completely legal. If I wanted to impose my beliefs on people, I would first make it so that this proposal was binding – an option, but something I didn’t choose to do.

2) I elected to raise awareness about this issue through the Brookline Town Meeting for a reason. Here in Brookline, we are fortunate to have a government system that has no option but to represent town residents. Each of us elects our Town Meeting member based on whether their positions are similar our own. Accordingly, when they vote for or against an issue, they represent the residents of their respective districts. The course of events isn’t: “Girl submits proposal. Girl passes own proposal. Girl enforces proposal’s tenets.” Instead, the course of events is (fortunately): “Girl drafts petition. Ten Brookline residents sign this petition. Girl submits petition and the accompanying resolution. Town Meeting members (and transitively the represented residents) vote on this resolution. Girl is now able to either say that Brookline residents agree with this proposal, or that they don’t.” 

———————————-

At the most basic level, this project was founded on one position: if people knew about the conditions of veal calf upbringing, they would not want to eat veal. The course of action to emerge from this position is no surprise: encourage people to know about it!

And that’s all this resolution is: an encouragement to find out about the origins of your food, to appreciate your money’s complicity in supporting certain environments, and to have your personal conclusions match your personal actions. 

When it comes to explaining this resolution’s position, it is worth highlighting something that the philosopher Peter Singer emphasized in his book, Animal Liberation. To paraphrase, no one makes the claim that animals should be treated as exact equals to humans. What is promoted, though, is the idea that animals should be treated with equal consideration. Mistreatment for humans may not mean the same thing for animals.

Example: A human who lives on the same property for his entire life would likely suffer out of boredom or longing for freedom - even if this property provides shelter, food, fresh air, and room to exercise. That said, this same environment would not necessarily count as mistreatment for animals. In fact, it would probably be ideal. Instead, the parallel level of mistreatment for an animal might be to be confined to a small cell for the duration of his own life. Which, in the case of most animals we use for our own means, is the standard. 

Animals are easy to exploit because they are rendered voiceless and defenseless when faced with our factory farm constructs. They do not speak like we do, they do not wield guns like we do, they do not marry and divorce like we do. 

Strangely, instead of considering their defenselessness as a reason to protect them, we construe this quality as justification for mistreatment. The same qualities that inspire us to prioritize care for infants - namely, helplessness, dependence, and innocence - are found in the animals we eat.  But unlike in infants, these qualities are exploited in animals for our own means. 

The emotional response to this comparison would be, “What?! How can you compare human infants’ wellbeing to animals’??”

The rational response, however, would ask: “Where lies the difference, a difference so great so as to justify such opposite treatments?” 

This article (see title link) captures our ultimate goal, the mission beyond passing our non-binding resolution: to create an environment where food producers see it as acting in their best interests to introduce humane standards into their business models. 

The article also brings up a good point that needs clarification. Why is it that our campaign calls for a complete ban on veal products, instead of simply requiring humane certification?

There are a few reasons for this.

First, as the article highlights, “humane” is a subjective term. For example, some will argue that veal crates make feedings easier and provide calves with a sense of security. Sounds humane, right? Then again, these crates also bring about muscle degradation, isolation, and increased susceptibility to disease. “Humane” just isn’t a black-and-white term. 

Second, there is the issue of relying on certification. First off, as far as we can tell there is no humane certification in widespread usage when it comes to veal. Additionally, certification is only as good as the regulation that guarantees the label. While we hope that this case in Vermont (see this link) isn’t the norm when it comes to organic meats, it also illustrates the vulnerabilities that come with trusting an unfamiliar source, even it has a “seal of approval”. 

We want to reiterate that we are petitioning for a non-binding resolution. Accordingly, the simple purpose of this campaign is to reduce veal consumption in our community through educating both those who buy veal and establishments that serve/sell veal. There is something to be said for initially making the campaign as clear-cut as possible, and explain the nuances of the issue once we have caught the public’s attention. In the future, despite reservations with relying on humane certification, we are willing to put forth a more moderate petition for a binding resolution if that means that veal sale and consumption in Brookline will be regulated for humane standards.