Mylan Engel, Jr.

Associate Professor of Philosphy

VEG Faculty Adviser

Suppose I go to a local animal shelter and adopt a Labrador retriever puppy. When I bring him home, I cut off his tail, castrate him and pull his teeth, all without anaesthesia. Then, I put him in a crate so small that he can’t turn around or lie down. I feed him, but keep him permanently confined in his crate. After six months, I yank him from his feces-encrusted crate, and while he’s conscious, I cut off his legs, dunk him in a 140ºF scalding tank, skin him alive, and dismember him. Have I done anything wrong?

Most people would find my behavior abhorrent and would insist that I go to prison for aggravated animal abuse. But don’t be so hasty. Before you condemn me, you owe it to me to find out why I did what I did. I mutilated the puppy, confined him and inhumanely killed him for food. After all, dog meat is an excellent source of protein.

Suppose I didn’t abuse and kill the dog for myself, but for “Carni,” a meat eater too squeamish to raise and kill her own food. Now is my behavior justified? Absolutely not. Abusing an animal for no good reason is never justified. Since we easily can meet our nutritional needs without eating dogs, my mutilating, confining and inhumanely killing the puppy is reprehensible, the only difference now is that Carni has paid me to do it. She, too, is culpable for that innocent animal’s suffering.

All of this might be a sick, pointless thought experiment, were it not for the fact that over 95 percent of farm animals raised in the U.S. are treated just as cruelly as the puppy above. Chickens and turkeys are crowded in sheds with 10,000-100,000 birds; veal calves are kept in crates 22 inches by 54 inches permanently chained at the neck; pigs are raised in crates on concrete-slatted floors with no bedding; and cattle are fattened in feedlots containing 100,000 animals.

Since the animals can’t move about, they must stand in their own waste. In these cramped, unsanitary conditions, the animals’ instinctual urges (to nurse, stretch, move around, groom, mate, etc.) are frustrated, causing them severe stress and compromising their immune systems. To prevent losses from disease, the animals regularly are fed antibiotics and growth hormones.

In these abysmal conditions, the animals develop neurotic behaviors, including cannibalism. To prevent stress-induced cannibalism/aggression, the animals receive these preemptive mutilations: debeaking, tail docking, branding, dehorning, ear clipping, teeth pulling and castration, all without anaesthesia. Consistency forces you to admit that if it’s wrong to tail-dock and castrate a puppy without anaesthesia, it’s equally wrong to do so to a pig.

Such cruel treatment might make you rethink eating pork, were it not for the rationalization: “We have a Federal Humane Slaughter Act. Surely, the animals on our plates weren’t killed in as barbaric fashion as the puppy, right?” Wrong! According to the Washington Post ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A60798-2001Apr9 ), the HSA is regularly violated. The Post reports that dozens of cows daily reach “legger” Ramon Moreno fully conscious, and Moreno still cuts off their hooves. Video footage of these abuses can be viewed at the above Web site. Since it’s obviously wrong to mutilate, confine and kill one dog as described above, any consistent person must admit that it’s equally wrong to mutilate, confine and inhumanely kill 25 million farm animals per day, since we easily can meet our nutritional needs without killing any of these animals.

Some students on campus are consistent and refuse to support the institutionalized cruelties inherent in modern animal agriculture. These vegan students won’t eat the carcass of a tortured bird this Thanksgiving. They’ll give thanks by eating life-affirming plant-based meals instead, and they’ll do so out of moral conviction. Unfortunately, some think that NIU needn’t provide vegan meals to these students. Why? Because they view veganism as a quirky choice of no more moral significance than deciding to get one’s tongue pierced or dye one’s hair green, whereas diabetics need special meals. But shouldn’t Hindu students be offered beef alternatives? Shouldn’t Kosher Jews be given pork alternatives? Shouldn’t students who believe it immoral to eat inhumanely raised dogs, cows, pigs, turkeys and chickens be given vegan alternatives?

I hope that we, as a university, aren’t so intolerant of different religious and moral perspectives. As for “medical necessity,” there’s overwhelming evidence that a vegan diet is the most heart-healthy, cancer-preventative diet humans can consume (http://www.eatright.org/adap1197.html).

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine recommends eating only whole grains, vegetables, fruits and legumes. Gone are meat and dairy, the two principal sources of fat and cholesterol in the American diet. The evidence is unequivocal: Vegan diets are nutritionally superior to meat-based diets. Thus, for medical reasons alone, every NIU dormitory should provide low-fat, health-promoting vegan entrees right next to the high-fat, cholesterol-laden, artery-clogging meat-based meals normally served. Obviously, NIU should provide students with healthful meal options, but it also should foster and support the ethical development of its students. It should nourish their bodies and their characters. No committed ethical vegetarian should have to abandon her compassionate moral principles because NIU won’t meet her nutritional needs.