Cutting Back Means Cutting Animal Consumption
By: Wayne Pacelle
At The HSUS, we are engaging in a range of cost-cutting management actions to cope with the downturn in the economy, but we are doing our best not to cut any essential animal protection programs. Especially in tough economic times, the determined actions of The HSUS and other animal protection groups are needed more than ever for animals in crisis.
Consumers are having to make tough cost-saving decisions, too. And as they strike some non-essential items from their shopping lists, they are shrinking demand for certain products that cause harm to animals.
Gourmet magazine is reporting that people are reducing to some degree their consumption of meat products. Given the inordinately high per capita consumption of animal products in America, this is good news for animals, the environment, and public health. The HSUS is a big tent organization, and we support people who want to switch to more humanely raised animal products, reduce the amount of meat in their diets, or try a vegetarian lifestyle—but the reduction of meat consumption is one of the best things we can do for the planet given how unsustainable the current levels of factory farming are.
Reductions in meat consumption means less support for factory farms—many of which confine animals in small cages or crates, and subject them to other procedures and handling practices that compromise their welfare. Read More
I continue to be amazed at Pacelle’s brazen attitude. No longer can they claim that they don’t want to force a vegan diet on our society. His entire blog post is dedicated towards ending hunting and livestock farming. Using indefinable terms like “factory farming”, he tries to make the HSUS standard emotional argument. Pacelle has to argue with emotion because that is all they have. There is no scientific basis for the changes in livestock housing they are trying to force on family farmers. Pacelle and his group is a serious threat to the ability of family farmers to feed this country.