While reading the slide show from Oprah's recent animal welfare extravaganza show, I came across an interesting quote from Julie Buckner, who was representing Californians for Safe Food. According to her, she opposes requiring that egg laying hens be provided with more space than a sheet of standard 8 x 11 paper because, "I don't want animals to suffer, but I don't want human beings to suffer either. And I really want to talk about the impact on people that this initiative has as well as the impact on animals."
This begs the question of what exactly she means when she suggests that treating hens better will cause people to suffer. Yes, I understand that giving hens more space will mean less hens, which will mean less eggs, or will mean more space, which will mean more costs, both of which will mean the cost of eggs goes up. And with eggs being at their most expensive in decades right now, what will the average consumer do!?
The answer is obvious: eat fewer eggs (or none at all). And is this really a form of suffering we should be concerned about? Isn't this akin to me claiming that I am suffering because I can't afford to purchase $120 Michael Kors rain boots. Sure, I can afford to buy $25 dollar Target rain boots, but I really like how the expensive boots look. They're not more functional, and they won't last longer, but GOD are they pretty.
While the egg industry touts eggs as a "superfood", chock full of protein and other bodily goodies, what they don't mention in their "incredible edible egg" commercials is that there are cheaper, readily available alternatives. Tofu comes to mind. As do flax seeds, which you can add to almost anything. I can buy 12 oz. of tofu for .99 cents. The average carton of eggs is 24 oz. and costs around $3.00. The tofu is cheaper, much higher in protein and way lower in fat. You can do almost anything you can do with an egg with tofu, including scramble it.
So how do we define suffering in the case of going eggless? Apparently, we define it as not being able to satisfy your taste buds, and not being able to clog your arteries with goo. Let's compare that to being shoved into a cage where you can't move, are covered in your own filth, go blind from ammonia fumes, have your body grow around the cage wires, and then are killed when you hit 2 years of age. That's like me comparing the 'suffering' I experience from my inability to purchase those sexy rain boots to the suffering of someone whose feet have frozen half off because they have no shoes.
Julie Buckner also mentions that we already have the ability to choose to purchase cage free eggs. "We can either buy animal products, if we so choose, and we can buy them at the cheapest, most affordable, safest cost, or we can choose to pay more for cage-free, free-range eggs and pork and cattle. And that's a personal choice," she says. "But there will not be a choice after this Proposition 2."
Maybe there shouldn't be a choice, Julie. Once upon a time, people could choose to beat their kids black and blue, or not to. We decided that maybe, just maybe, that wasn't a good choice to let people have because they didn't care if children were suffering. So we took that choice away. The world didn't end. Maybe taking away that choice resulted in a lot of parental suffering, but I think we all realize that the headaches caused by annoying children aren't even comparable to a broken arm caused by an angry parent.
I do not eat eggs. I live on an income of about $14,000 a year, in one of the most expensive cities in the country. I am not suffering. The only impact not eating eggs has had that I can tell is that I don't buy eggs.
If you want to talk about the impact on egg farmers, let's also talk about the impact of companies like Tyson and how they, and not people who want compassion for sentient beings, are more responsible for the problems of egg farmers than anyone. Let's talk about how these conglomerates don't want to loose millions from their bottom line by stopping their torture of animals and their disrespect for people.
Great post! I loved your analogy of the boots, especially the following line: "That's like me comparing the 'suffering' I experience from my inability to purchase those sexy rain boots to the suffering of someone whose feet have frozen half off because they have no shoes."
I watched the show, simply to see how indepth they got. I was disappointed but not surprised, afterall Oprah has to be careful after the Mad Cowboy thing. BTW, I think it was Buckner that also said (not verbatim) "I don't think treatment has anything to do with housing." So freakin ridiculous! That's like saying parents can keep their kids outside in the cold because HOUSING has nothing to do with their treatment! Needless to say that caused a long rant at the television.....lol.
That's a really good point. Housing is absolutely part and parcel of treatment, impossible to separate.
I think I need to go watch the whole show, since this post was just sparked by reading the transcripts and there's been a big to-do on BlogHer about it. It's difficult for us as supporters of animal rights/welfare to feel anything but disgusted by the kind of rhetoric provided by Buckner, but from what I've been reading many people don't think it's a big stretch to think expensive eggs cause more suffering than battery cages. However, the subject has been brought up and now it's up to us to show people why that's an odd notion.
Oprah has the power, ha ha.