Food studies and animal rights

Abstract

It would seem that food studies scholars and animal rights advocates are on opposite ends of the table when it comes to thinking about food choice. A pure animal rights advocate believes that animals are not “ours” to do with as we please and, therefore, we should not eat them, nor should we extract any products (milk, eggs) from them; thus a fully committed animal rights advocate is a vegan. Veganism is about limiting one’s diet and while a vegan may eat food that tastes good, morality, not taste, is the primary motivator for food choices. Abstaining from all animal products involves a radical change, not only in one’s diet but also in one’s attitudes towards food traditions, rituals, and trends, many of which involve the consumption of animals. Given the abundance of meat and animal products in the American diet, a choice to reject this norm can meet with hostility or ridicule from those who enjoy the taste of meat or do not care to think about where their meat comes from. Thus, for many ethical vegans, food choice can become a point of tension or discord with the broader community. Food studies scholars understand food quite differently. They enjoy chronicling the expansion, not the restriction, of diet, through improvements in agriculture, refinements in food preparation, and the development of a food market. They write about food traditions and rituals with a seriousness of purpose, if not reverence, because food traditions and rituals, scholars argue, make us who we are. Moreover, rediscovering or preserving (not radically altering) food traditions reassures food studies scholars and their audiences that food still means something in a fast-food world. Lastly, food studies scholars write more about howtaste, not ethics, motivates food choices and they tend to see food as a unifying, not dividing, element in society. Despite these differences, the history and impact of the animal rights movement are sig-nificant for understanding many key concepts and ideas relevant to the discipline of food studies (the intersection between politics and diet; environmental consequences of consumption; health and diet; food reform movements). This essay will chart the history of how the animal rights and animal welfare movements have shaped attitudes towards using animals as food sources. Although there are key differences between the animal rights and the animal welfare philosophies, this essay will assesses their impact as social movements and as political forces and thus, they must be viewed together, as both have had measurable effects on how consumers think about the consumption of animals and animal products. Observers and critics of animal rights often focus on the philosophy behind the movement, which many see as unrealistic, overly rigid, or preposterous (what will happen to all the animals if we do not eat them?). However, to measure the impact of animal rights exclusively by philosophical writings is to tell only part of the story. Animal rights is much more than a philosophy; local and national organizations have had to make strategic decisions about how, when, and where to help animals, decisions that have had very real impact on how people think about eating animals. As much as animal rights advocates may desire a world in which no animal is used or exploited, they have chosen to expose and combat some of the worst abuses of animals first (though not exclusively), in an effort to promote public awareness about the extent of animal abuse. Some of the worst cases of abuse have been uncovered in the meat production industries; therefore, animal rights and animal welfare advocates have pushed some critical issues out into the public realm regarding our consumption of animals and animal products. The public campaigns of both animal rights and animal welfare advocates are as significant as their philosophies in shaping debates about food choices.