A Critique of Rights in the Animal Product Industry

Skinny Cow dairy products are a Nestle made product that is usually ice cream or cheese that is very low in fat and calories compared to whole milk products. This is because they change the actual makeup of the milk used in the product and in doing that they take out nutrients as well. The producers of this dairy product then replace the fat with artificial flavors and lots more sugar to make up for the difference in taste. But to take out the fat, calories, and nutrients is to make a food that can be eaten without consequence, but what consequences are actually coming out of a product like this? For starters, we know that this product is specifically advertised to women in the hopes that they will see it, feel as it is a "safe food" to eat, and will not bear the caloric consequence. It is instead just a marketing ploy that is the embodiment of nutritionism (the nutritional value of a food is based on its individuals components that are identified as good rather than the whole). One has to wonder why advertisers decided that sexualizing meat and animal products would draw in a wide consumer base. Why is it that when you equate a woman to a cow, but make sure that the cow is portrayed as skinny and feminine, that it is supposed to help you sell more of your product? It is mostly because it masks what is truly happening behind the scenes of the dairy industry, and tries to make the cruelty and lies sexy- all while showing that the objectification of women and animals are among the same plight. This is problematic in multiple ways.

To equate women and animals is to say that they are of the same caliber and oppressed in the same ways. It is also to say that both are objects in this realm of thinking. As a woman, and a feminist, I take issue with this. I do not feel I should be equated to an animal, nor an animal's plight. Women have come much farther and still have a ways to go (especially legally through the ERA), and I do not feel it is this new branch of third wave feminism's right to say that I should include animals in intersextional feminism's fight. Because in doing that, you are then acknowledging the sexualizing of meat and animals to be on the same playing field as a human woman's right and I find that ridiculous. On the other hand, I do recognize the issues of the animal industry aside from it being a feminist issue.

The truth behind the actual milk that comes from Skinny Cow, is that it is actually coming from a cow that is too skinny. Dairy cows are forced into having consistent pregnancies in order to constantly produce milk. This forces these cows into poor diets, usually the inability to move around, and a deprivation of food since they are constantly burning more calories from lactating and pregnancy. In order to meet the demand of the market these animals are forced into small cages, and in inhumane settings that only see them as an object. Only back in 2014, Nestle vowed to make its dairy farms much more humane after news broke of abuse at a Nestle farm in Wisconsin. Where workers were investigated and found to be kicking, beating, and even stabbing the cows. Nestle then announced that it would be improving its animal treatment across the board by, "including an end to the practises of tail docking and dehorning of dairy cattle, an end to the castration of piglets without painkillers, and the phaseout of growth promoters for poultry. The mega company has also committed to ending the intensive confinement of baby calves in veal crates, pregnant pigs in gestation crates, and egg-laying hens in battery cages". In a mandatory policy mandate Nestle also sited the five freedoms it ensures its animals globally:

1. Freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition

2. Freedom from fear and distress

3. Freedom from physical and thermal discomfort

4. Freedom from pain, injury and disease

5. Freedom to express normal patterns of

behavior

But the question is, is it even possible to treat animals that we use for their byproducts and meat humanely? And more importantly is it our responsibility or job as humans to do so?

It is not easily disputed that the meat industry, especially in the United States, is responsible for the largest carbon footprint, consumption of most of the grains grown, and does not let the animals exist/ behave in their natural way. In moderation meat can be a part of a healthy diet, and has the ability to feed more people at a time. The Western Diet focuses a large part on meat and so it would be virtually impossible to make every American cut it out of their diet. But hypothetically, what would life look like if every American went vegan? According to Science Magazine, although this would help to ease a bit of carbon emissions, the billions of livestock that currently eat much of our food waste such as corn stalk, and potato peels, would become obsolete. The amount of manure that would be needed in order to implement fields to grow enough vegetables and fruit would not meet the demand and would require artificial fertilizer. "Although animals now make up some 49% of agricultural emissions in the United States, a vegan nation would eliminate far less than that. Annual emissions would drop from 623 million tons to 446 million tons a year, the team reports today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences". In the end, even if all Americans decided to go vegan the carbon emissions would not decrease to the levels we need to reverse global warming. 

Then there is close to no food regulation in the United States, the FDA does a minimal at best job of checking food and making sure that working conditions/ farm conditions are safe. It is mostly due to the fact that Americans are very distant from the food they eat and it has become more of a commodity than a necessity- making it expensive to eat healthy and mindfully. There are no regulations as to what food companies can deem as "humane" and therefore labels are placed on animal products that are very misleading. The "humane treatment" label can mean anything to being raised in an open farm, where they wander and are fed grass up until they are sent to the same slaughterhouses, or it can just mean they given sedatives and medicine before they are killed. So although they may be treated kindly for the majority of their lives, they are still being raised for slaughter and their lives are only meant to feed humans later on. 

However, is it okay for humans to eat animals? Humans distinguish themselves as the dominant species. We are the smartest species on Earth, we are able to create new and modern technologies, predict and act logically, and we are able to be emotional yet rational beings with free will. Humans also hold the ability to cook and care about the food that they eat. To equate humans to be on the same level as animals is to negate the aspects of the human race that set us apart from other animals. In doing this, I see no problem in humans eating meat in moderation so long as they do raise the animals with more regulations and more humanely. I also see no harm in humans having to be closer to the animals that are killed for their consumption. It is much more ethical in this way to limit yourself to mainly eating vegetables, and only eating meat every so often. 

Word Count: 1303