Christian Perspectives on Meat Eating

8/9/2019 Christian Perspectives on Meat Eating

1/21

Contents

1 Introduction 2

1.1 The traditional Christian view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.2 Animals and saints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2 What does the Bible say? 4

2.1 Meat eating is ok . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.2 God has given us dominion over all creatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.3 Gods relationship with the world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.4 Humans relationship with the world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3 Modern and pro-animal thinking 7

3.1 Modern Christian thinking about animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3.2 Animal-friendly Christian thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3.3 Andrew Linzey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

4 What the churches say 9

4.1 Assemblies of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4.2 Anglican . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4.3 Episcopal Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4.4 Evangelical Lutheran Church in America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4.5 Methodist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4.6 Presbyterian Church (USA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4.7 Roman Catholic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

5 CS Lewiss Animal Theology 13

5.1 Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135.2 Cruel men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

5.3 Nature red . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

5.4 Pet heaven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

6 The issues 16

6.1 Animal welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

6.2 Climate change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

6.3 Animal waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

1


2/21

Chapter 1

Introduction

For most of history Christians largely ignored ani-mal suffering.

Christian thinkers believed that human beings

were greatly superior to animals. They taught that

human beings could treat animals as badly as they

wanted to because people had few (if any) moral obli-

gations towards animals.

Modern Christians generally take a much more

pro-animal line. They think that any unnecessary

mistreatment of animals is both sinful and morally

wrong.

1.1 The traditional Christian view

When early theologians looked at nature red in

tooth and claw they concluded that it was a natural

law of the universe that animals should be preyed

on and eaten by others. This was reflected in their

theology.

Christian thinking downgraded animals for three

main reasons:

God had created animals for the use of humanbeings and human beings were therefore enti-

tled to use them in any way they want

Animals were distinctively inferior to human

beings and were worth little if any moral con-

sideration, because:

humans have souls and animals dont

humans have reason and animals dont

Christian thought was heavily humano-centricand only considered animals in relation to hu-

man beings, and not on their own terms

1.2 Animals and saints

Not all leading Christians disparaged animals.

Some of the saints demonstrated that virtuous

Christians treated animals respectfully and kindly:

St Antony of Padua preached to fishes

St Francis of Assisi preached to the birds andbecame the most popular pro-animal Christian

figure

Father Francis and his companions were

making a trip through the Spoleto Val-

ley near the town of Bevagna. Suddenly,

Francis spotted a great number of birds of

all varieties. There were doves, crows and

all sorts of birds. Swept up in the mo-

ment, Francis left his friends in the road

and ran after the birds, who patientlywaited for him. He greeted them in his

usual way, expecting them to scurry off

into the air as he spoke. But they moved

not.

Filled with awe, he asked them if they

would stay awhile and listen to the Word

of God. He said to them: My brother

and sister birds, you should praise your

Creator and always love him: He gave

2


3/21

Introduction

you feathers for clothes, wings to fly and

all other things that you need. It isGod who made you noble among all crea-

tures, making your home in thin, pure

air. Without sowing or reaping, you re-

ceive Gods guidance and protection.

At this the birds began to spread their

wings, stretch their necks and gaze at

Francis, rejoicing and praising God in

a wonderful way according to their na-

ture. Francis then walked right through

the middle of them, turned around and

came back, touching their heads and bod-ies with his tunic.

Then he gave them his blessing, making

the sign of the cross over them. At that

they flew off and Francis, rejoicing and

giving thanks to God, went on his way.

Later, Francis wondered aloud to his

companions why he had never preached

to birds before. And from that day on,

Francis made it his habit to solicitously

invoke all birds, all animals and reptilesto praise and love their Creator. And

many times during Francis life there were

remarkable events of Francis speaking to

the animals. There was even a time when

St. Francis quieted a flock of noisy birds

that were interrupting a religious cere-

mony! Much to the wonder of all present,

the birds remained quiet until Francis

sermon was complete.

Source: http://www.americancatholic.

org/features/francis/stories.asp.

Cows are protected by St Brigit

St Columba told his monks to care for a crane

St Brendan was helped in his voyage by sea

monsters

This chapter was taken from http://www.bbc.co.

uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/animals_1.shtml

3
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/animals_1.shtmlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/animals_1.shtmlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/animals_1.shtmlhttp://www.americancatholic.org/features/francis/stories.asphttp://www.americancatholic.org/features/francis/stories.asp


4/21

Chapter 2

What does the Bible say?

Unless otherwise indicated, all verses taken from theNIV. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by Biblica.

2.1 Meat eating is ok

Deuteronomy 14:4-5 4 These are the animals you

may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, 5 the deer, the

gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex, the an-

telope and the mountain sheep.1

2.2 God has given us dominion overall creatures

Genesis 1:26 26 Then God said, Let us make

man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule

over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over

the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the crea-

tures that move along the ground.

Genesis 1:28 28 God blessed them and said to

them, Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the

earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea

and the birds of the air and over every living crea-

ture that moves on the ground.

Genesis 9:2 2 The fear and dread of you will fall

upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of

the air, upon every creature that moves along the

1The precise identification of some of the birds and ani-

mals in this chapter is uncertain.

ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they aregiven into your hands.

Genesis 9:3 3 Everything that lives and moves will

be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants,

I now give you everything.

Psalm 8:5-8 5 You made him a little lower than

the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and

honor.

6 You made him ruler over the works of your

hands; you put everything under his feet:7 all flocks and herds, and the beasts of the field,

8 the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all

that swim the paths of the seas.

Jeremiah 27:6 6 Now I will hand all your countries

over to my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon;

I will make even the wild animals subject to him.

Daniel 2:38 38 in your hands he has placed

mankind and the beasts of the field and the birds of

the air. Wherever they live, he has made you ruler

over them all. You are that head of gold.

2.3 Gods relationship with the

world

As ruler, he protects and cares for his people, just

as a shepherd would protect his flock. Although he

has dominion over all creation, God is not a tyrant.

4


5/21


Psalm 72:8 8 He will rule from sea to sea and from

the River to the ends of the earth.

1 Samuel 17:35 35 I went after it, struck it and

rescued the sheep from its mouth. When it turned

on me, I seized it by its hair, struck it and killed it.

2.4 Humans relationship with the

world

Our relationship with the world and animals shouldparallel that of Gods relationship to the world.

Proverbs 12:10 says that it is a righteous man who

cares for animals. It is not merely a matter of pref-

erences, it is a moral imperative for us to care for

animals.

God detests cruelty done to little birds.2 The

Bible says that we ought to care for animals, to help

fallen animals, to treat them well when they work

for us, and to care for the balance of nature. In fact,

God wants us to honour animal parents in the same

way we honour our human parents (also see Ecclesiastes3:18-20).

Proverbs 12:10 10 A righteous man cares for the

needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the

wicked are cruel.

Exodus 23:5 5 If you see the donkey of someone

who hates you fallen down under its load, do not

leave it there; be sure you help him with it.

Deuteronomy 5:16 16 Honor your father and

your mother, as the LORD your God has com-

manded you, so that you may live long and that it

may go well with you in the land the LORD your

God is giving you.

2Geneva Study Bible on Deuteronomy 22:6-7: If God de-

tests cruelty done to little birds, how much more to man, made

according to his image?

Deuteronomy 22:6-7 6 If you come across a birds

nest beside the road, either in a tree or on theground, and the mother is sitting on the young or

on the eggs, do not take the mother with the young.

7 You may take the young, but be sure to let the

mother go, so that it may go well with you and you

may have a long life.

Deuteronomy 25:4 4 Do not muzzle an ox while

it is treading out the grain.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commen-

tary:

Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he

treadeth out the corn-In Judea, as in mod-

ern Syria and Egypt, the larger grains were

beaten out by the feet of oxen, which,

yoked together, day after day trod round

the wide open spaces which form the

threshing-floors. The animals were al-

lowed freely to pick up a mouthful, when

they chose to do so: a wise as well as hu-

mane regulation, introduced by the law of

Moses (compare 1 Cor 9:9; 1 Tim 5:17,

18).

Matthew Henrys Concise Commentary:

25:4 This is a charge to husbandmen. It

teaches us to make much of the animals

that serve us. But we must learn, not only

to be just, but kind to all who are em-

ployed for the good of our better part, our

souls.

The sign that Rebekah was suitable to be the wifeof Isaac was her willingness to draw enough water to

feed all of Abrahams servants camels.

Genesis 24:19-20 19 After she had given him a

drink, she said, Ill draw water for your camels too (em-

phasis added), until they have finished drinking.

20 So she quickly emptied her jar into the trough,

ran back to the well to draw more water, and drew

enough for all his camels.

5


6/21


We are asked to protect the weak, and prevent ex-

ploitation (Ezekiel 34:11-16). Animals are weak, andwe dont merely eat them, we exploit them. When

Nathan confronted David, he used a story (2 Samuel

12) to remind him of the proper relationship be-

tween a monarch and his subject.

Ezekiel 34:11-16 (The Message) 11-16 God, the

Master, says: From now on, I myself am the shep-

herd. Im going looking for them. As shepherds

go after their flocks when they get scattered, Im go-

ing after my sheep. Ill rescue them from all the

places theyve been scattered to in the storms. Ill

bring them back from foreign peoples, gather them

from foreign countries, and bring them back to their

home country. Ill feed them on the mountains of

Israel, along the streams, among their own people.

Ill lead them into lush pasture so they can roam the

mountain pastures of Israel, graze at leisure, feed in

the rich pastures on the mountains of Israel. And

I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep. I myself

will make sure they get plenty of rest. Ill go after

the lost, Ill collect the strays, Ill doctor the injured,

Ill build up the weak ones and oversee the strong ones so

theyre not exploited (emphasis added).

2 Samuel 12 Nathan Rebukes David

1 The LORD sent Nathan to David. When he

came to him, he said, There were two men in a cer-

tain town, one rich and the other poor. 2 The rich

man had a very large number of sheep and cattle,

3 but the poor man had nothing except one little

ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew

up with him and his children. It shared his food,drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It

was like a daughter to him. 4 Now a traveler came

to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from tak-

ing one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal

for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he

took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man

and prepared it for the one who had come to him.

5 David burned with anger against the man and

said to Nathan, As surely as the LORD lives, the

man who did this deserves to die! 6 He must pay

for that lamb four times over, because he did such athing and had no pity.

Solomon reminds us that humankinds fate is tied

to those of animals, that we are both mortal beings

with the same breath/spirit, and that we all come

from dust and return to dust.

Ecclesiastes 3:18-20 18 I also thought, As for

men, God tests them so that they may see that they

are like the animals. 19 Mans fate is like that of

the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As onedies, so dies the other.All have the same breath3; man

has no advantage over the animal (emphasis added).

Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same

place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.

Much material was taken from The status of ani-

mals in Biblical and Christian thought: A study in collid-

ing values by R. Preece and D. Fraser in Society and

Animals 8 245263 (2000) for this chapter.

3Ecclesiastes 3:19 Or spirit

6


7/21

Chapter 3

Modern and pro-animal thinking

3.1 Modern Christian thinkingabout animals

To try to picture the Christ, the one

whom Christians call Agnus Dei, the

Lamb of God, chewing on a leg of lamb

seems incongruous to me. Elizabeth

Farians

41 And while they still did not believe it

because of joy and amazement, he asked

them, Do you have anything here to eat?

42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish,

43 and he took it and ate it in their pres-

ence. Luke 24:41-43

Modern Christian thinking is largely sympathetic to

animals and less willing to accept that there is an un-

bridgeable gap between animals and human beings.

Although most theologians dont accept that an-

imals have rights, they do acknowledge that some

animals display sufficient consciousness and self-

awareness to deserve moral consideration.

The growth of the environmental movement hasalso radically changed Christian ideas about the role

human beings play in relation to nature.

Few Christians nowadays think that nature exists

to serve humanity, and there is a general acceptance

that human dominion over nature should be seen

as stewardship and partnership rather than domina-

tion and exploitation.

This has significantly softened Christian attitudes

to animals.

3.2 Animal-friendly Christianthoughts

Here are some of the animal-friendly ideas that mod-

ern Christians use when thinking about animals:

The Bible shows that God made his covenant

with animals as well as human beings

Human and non-human animals have the

same origin in God

St. Francis of Assisi said that animalshad the same source as himself

In Gods ideal world human beings live in har-

mony with animals

The Garden of Eden, in which human

beings lived in peace and harmony with

animals, demonstrates Gods ideal world,

and the state of affairs that human beings

should work towards

The prophet Isaiah describes the King-dom of Heaven as a place where animals

and human beings live together in peace

(Isaiah 11:6-9)

God has the right to have everything he cre-

ated treated respectfully - wronging animals is

wronging God

God is not indifferent to anything in his cre-

ation

7


8/21

Modern and pro-animal thinking

The example of a loving creator God should

lead human beings to act lovingly towards ani-mals

Inflicting pain on any living creature is

incompatible with living in a Christ-like

way

Animals are weak compared to us - Christ tells

us to be kind to them

Jesus told human beings to be kind to the

weak and helpless

In comparison to human beings, animals

are often weak and helpless

Christians should therefore show com-

passion to animals

To love those who cannot love you in the same

way is a unique way of acting with generous

love.

If you love them that love you, what re-

ward have you?

It is a great good to take responsibility for the

welfare of others, including animals

3.3 Andrew Linzey

Since an animals natural life is a gift from

God, it follows that Gods right is violated

when the natural life of his creatures is

perverted. Andrew Linzey, Christianity

and the Rights of Animals

The leading modern Christian writer on animal

rights is Andrew Linzey.

Linzey believes Gods love is intended not just

for human beings but for all creatures.

Linzey teaches that Christians should treat every

sentient animal according to its intrinsic God-given

worth, and not according to its usefulness to human

beings.

Christians who do this will achieve a far greater

spiritual appreciation of the worth of creation. Andrew Linzey derives his theology of animal

rights in several ways, but the one most often quoted

involves looking at creation from Gods point of

view rather than humanitys:

The universe was created for God, not for hu-

manity

Creation exists for God, not for humanity

God loves all creation

God put himself into creation, and died for it

on the Cross

Since God cares for all creation so much, hu-

man beings should care for all creation too

Human beings should care for animals, be-

cause they are part of Gods creation

Doing wrong to an animal is wronging God by

violating his right to have the whole of his cre-

ation respected.

This chapter was taken from http://www.bbc.

co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/

animals_1.shtml

8
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/animals_1.shtmlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/animals_1.shtmlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/animals_1.shtml


9/21

Chapter 4

What the churches say

4.1 Assemblies of GodIn spite of these future events, we feel Christians

must act responsibly in their use of Gods earth as

we rightly harvest its resources. As stated in Genesis

1:27-30, we believe God has given mankind alone

complete dominion (authority) over the earths re-

sources. These resources include the land, the wa-

ter, the vegetation, and the earths minerals; as well

as the animals, fish, and fowl. Like the earth, we ac-

knowledge these to be gifts from God to mankind;

and as gifts they are to be appreciated and cherished.

As Christians we believe dominion requires good

stewardship of our temporary homeearth.

Source: http://www.ag.org/top/Beliefs/

contempissues_02_environment.cfm.

4.2 Anglican

This resolution from the 1998 Lambeth Conference

of the Anglican Church is typical of contemporaryChristian thinking about animals:

This conference:

(a) reaffirms the biblical vision of cre-

ation according to which: Creation is

a web of inter-dependent relationships

bound together in the covenant which

God the Holy Trinity has established with

the whole earth and every living being.

(i) the divine Spirit is sacramentallypresent in creation, which is therefore

to be treated with reverence, respect and

gratitude

(ii) human beings are both co-partners

with the rest of creation and living bridges

between heaven and earth, with respon-

sibility to make personal and corporate

sacrifices for the common good of all cre-

ation

(iii) the redemptive purpose of God in Je-

sus Christ extends to the whole of cre-

ation. Lambeth Conference, 1998

Lambeth Conference, 1998

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/

christianity/christianethics/animals_1.shtml.

4.3 Episcopal Church

Resolved, That the 74th General Convention recog-nize that responsible care of animals falls within the

stewardship of creation; and be it further

Resolved, That The Episcopal Church encourage

its members to ensure that husbandry methods for

captive and domestic animals would prohibit suffer-

ing in such conditions as puppy mills, and factory-

farms; and be it further

Resolved, That The Episcopal Churchs Peace and

Justice Office identify existing guidelines to educate

9
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/animals_1.shtmlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/animals_1.shtmlhttp://www.ag.org/top/Beliefs/contempissues_02_environment.cfmhttp://www.ag.org/top/Beliefs/contempissues_02_environment.cfm


10/21


its members to adhere to ethical standards in the

care and treatment of animals; and be it furtherResolved, That The Episcopal Church, through

its Office of Government Relations, identify and ad-

vocate for legislation protecting animals and effec-

tive enforcement measures.

Source: General Convention, Journal of the Gen-

eral Convention of...The Episcopal Church, Min-

neapolis, 2003 (New York: General Convention,

2004), p. 253.

4.4 Evangelical Lutheran Church inAmerica

As members of this church, we commit ourselves to

personal life styles that contribute to the health of

the environment. Many organizations provide mate-

rials to guide us in examining possibilities and mak-

ing changes appropriate to our circumstances.

We challenge ourselves, particularly the economi-

cally secure, to tithe environmentally. Tithers would

reduce their burden on the earths bounty by pro-

ducing ten percent less in waste, consuming ten per-cent less in non-renewable resources, and contribut-

ing the savings to earthcare efforts. Environmental

tithing also entails giving time to learn about envi-

ronmental problems and to work with others toward

solutions.

Source: This social statement was adopted by a

more than two-thirds majority vote as a social state-

ment of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Amer-

ica by the third Churchwide Assembly on August

28, 1993, at Kansas City, Missouri. See http://www.

elca.org/socialstatements/environment/.

4.5 Methodist

Environmental Stewardship, 1984

A Theology of Stewardship and the Environment

All creation is under the authority of God and all

creation is interdependent. Our covenant with God

requires us to be stewards, protectors, and defenders

of all creation. The use of natural resources is a uni-

versal concern and responsibility of all as reflectedin Psalm 24:1: The earth is the Lords and the full-

ness thereof.

In the Bible, a steward is one given responsibil-

ity for what belongs to another. The Greek word

we translate as steward is oikonomos, one who cares

for the household or acts as its trustee. The word

oikos, meaning household, is used to describe the

world as Gods household. Christians, then, are

to be stewards of the whole household (creation) of

God. Oikonomia, stewardship, is also the root of

our word economics. Oikos, moreover, is the rootof our modern word, ecology. Thus in a broad

sense, stewardship, economics, and ecology are, and

should be, related.

The Old Testament relates these concepts in the

vision of shalom. Often translated peace, the

broader meaning of shalom is wholeness. In the

Old Testament, shalom is used to characterize the

wholeness of a faithful life lived in relationship to

God. Shalom is best understood when we experi-

ence wholeness and harmony as human beings with

God, with others, and with creation itself. The taskof the steward is to seek shalom.

Stewards of Gods Creation. The concept of stew-

ardship is first introduced in the creation story. In

Genesis 1:26, the Bible affirms that every person is

created in Gods image. But this gift brings with it

a unique responsibility. Being created in Gods im-

age brings with it the responsibility to care for Gods

creation. God chose to give human beings a divine

image not so we would exploit creation to our ownends, but so we would be recognized as stewards of

God. To have dominion over the earth is a trustee-

ship, a sign that God cares for creation and has en-

trusted it to our stewardship. Our stewardship of all

the worlds resources is always accountable to God

who loves the whole of creation and who desires that

it exist in shalom. The intention of creation was that

all should experience shalom, to know the goodness

of creation. In the Old Testament, fullness of life

10
http://www.elca.org/socialstatements/environment/http://www.elca.org/socialstatements/environment/


11/21


means having enough, sufficient, to experience the

goodness of creation. By contrast, our age has cometo define fullness of life as more than enough. The

desire of many for excess begins to deny enough for

others, and shalom is broken. That all should par-

ticipate in creations goodness is a fundamental of

stewardship.

Another theme of shalom is that in creation we

are all related. Humans are not self-sufficient. We

need God, others, nature. The story of the garden

(Genesis 2) attempts to picture the complete and

harmonious interrelatedness of all creation. There

is shalom only when we recognize that interrelated-ness and care for the whole. When we violate the

rules of the garden, we are dismissed. In ecological

terms, when we violate the principles of ecology, we

suffer environmental damage.

As the story of the garden shows, Gods intention

of shalom was not carried out. Sin intervened, and

the shalom was broken. But God offered a way to

restore shalom - redemption. And as Gods stew-

ards we have a role in that redemption. Steward-

ship, then, is to become involved wherever whole-

ness is lacking and to work in harmony with Gods

saving activity to reconcile, to reunite, to heal, to

make whole.

Stewardship has to do with how we bring all of

the resources at our disposal into efficient use in

our participation in the saving activity of God. En-

vironmental stewardship is one part of our work as

Gods stewards. As stewards of the natural environ-

ment we are called to preserve and restore the air,

water, and land on which life depends. Moreover,

we are called to see that all life has a sufficient shareof the resources of nature. With new hope rooted

in Christ and with more obedient living as stewards

of the earth, we can participate in Gods healing of

creation.

Source: Book of Resolutions of the United

Methodist Church 2000 (The United Methodist

Publishing House, Nashville, Tennessee, Copyright)

4.6 Presbyterian Church (USA)

That the 218th General Assembly (2008) [a]pprove

the study and recommendations, entitled, The

Power to Change: U.S. Energy Policy and Global

Warming [to]

e. Purchase sustainably grown food and other

products from local producers in order to reduce

the energy associated with producing, and shipping

goods.

f. Reduce consumption of meat because the pro-

duction of grain fed to most livestock is fossil fuel-

intensive and their waste emits methane, which is apotent greenhouse gas.

Source: http://www.pc-biz.org/Explorer.aspx?id=

1537&promoID=10.

4.7 Roman Catholic

The Papal Encyclical Evangelium Vitae recognises

that animals have both an intrinsic value and a place

in Gods kingdom.The Roman Catholic Ethic of Life, if fully ac-

cepted, would lead Christians to avoid anything that

brings unnecessary suffering or death to animals.

The official position of the Church is contained

in a number of sections of the Churchs official

Catechism (the paragraphing within each section is

ours):

373 In Gods plan man and woman have the voca-

tion of subduing the earth as stewards of God.

This sovereignty is not to be an arbitrary and de-

structive domination. God calls man and woman,

made in the image of the Creator who loves ev-

erything that exists, to share in his providence to-

ward other creatures; hence their responsibility for

the world God has entrusted to them.

2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect

for the integrity of creation.

11
http://www.pc-biz.org/Explorer.aspx?id=1537&promoID=10http://www.pc-biz.org/Explorer.aspx?id=1537&promoID=10


12/21


Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are

by nature destined for the common good of past,present, and future humanity.

Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal re-

sources of the universe cannot be divorced from re-

spect for moral imperatives.

Mans dominion over inanimate and other living

beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is

limited by concern for the quality of life of his neigh-

bour, including generations to come; it requires a

religious respect for the integrity of creation.

2416 Animals are Gods creatures. He surroundsthem with his providential care. By their mere exis-

tence they bless him and give him glory.

Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall

the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of

Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of

those whom he created in his own image. Hence it

is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing.

They may be domesticated to help man in his work

and leisure.Medical and scientific experimentation on ani-

mals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains

within reasonable limits and contributes to caring

for or saving human lives.

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause ani-

mals to suffer or die needlessly.

It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them

that should as a priority go to the relief of human

misery.

One can love animals; one should not direct to

them the affection due only to persons.

Criticisms

Some writers have criticised the statements above

for being so firmly centred on human beings. Caus-

ing animals to suffer needlessly, for example, is de-

scribed in 2418 as being contrary to human dig-

nity, rather than as being a wrong towards animals.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/

christianity/christianethics/animals_1.shtml.

12
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/animals_1.shtmlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/animals_1.shtml


13/21

Chapter 5

CS Lewiss Animal Theology

5.1 Animals

We may find it difficult to formulate a hu-

man right of tormenting beasts in terms

which would not equally imply an angelic

right of tormenting men. C.S. Lewis,

Vivisection

C.S. Lewis loved animals, as his earliest writings

show. He felt the question of animal suffering was

a significant problem for Christianity: so important

that he dedicated a chapter ofThe Problem of Pain to

it.

Lewis believed that humans were absolutely sep-

arate from animals, but he considered animals con-

scious - or some animals to be more conscious than

others. It would be unhelpful to group apes with

earthworms: Clearly in some ways the ape and man

are much more like each other than either is like the

worm. There was a difference in complexity from

lower to higher animals.At some point sentience almost certainly

comes in, for the higher animals have nervous sys-

tems very like our own. (The Problem of Pain) This

was by no means an accepted view. It would have

been a potentially expensive one, because vivisection

- damaging or fatal experiments on animals - and

other exploitative uses of animals were common-

place, and acknowledging animal sentience would

mean admitting that these practices were cruel.

5.2 Cruel menLewis condemned vivisection absolutely, and said so

in a 1947 essay. He deplored the popular arguments

in favour of experiments on animals, calling them

easy speeches that comfort cruel men. He pointed

out that the same ideas could be used to justify ex-

periments on humans, and explicitly drew a compar-

ison with the Nazis.

This would be emotive language at any time, but

it was shocking in context: this was 1947, two to

three years after the liberation of the concentration

camps.

The Christian defender is very apt to

say that we are entitled to do anything

we please to animals because they have

no souls. But what does this mean? If

it means that animals have no conscious-

ness, then how is this known? They cer-

tainly behave as if they had, or at least the

higher animals do. I myself am inclined to

think that far fewer animals than is sup-posed have what we should recognize as

consciousness. But that is only an opin-

ion. Unless we know on other grounds

that vivisection is right we must not take

the moral risk of tormenting them on a

mere opinion.

On the other hand, the statement that

they have no souls may mean that they

have no moral responsibilities and are not

13


14/21


immortal. But the absence of soul in

that sense makes the infliction of painupon them not easier but harder to jus-

tify, for it means that animals cannot de-

serve pain, nor profit morally by the dis-

cipline of pain, nor be recompensed by

happiness in another life for suffering in

this. Soullessness, in so far as it is rele-

vant to the question at all, is an argument

against vivisection. C.S. Lewis, Vivisec-

tion

Lewiss love for animals shines through all his writ-ings, and it made him especially concerned with

finding a meaning behind animal suffering.

5.3 Nature red

Lewiss concern did not end at animal pain that was

inflicted by humans. He saw the whole of nature

as cruel, with animals killing and eating others to

survive. His theology explained human pain by way

of humanitys fallen state, but animals had commit-

ted no sin. Lewis reasoned that humanitys fall hadbrought animals down to a fallen state too.

In examining the problem of wild animals pain,

Lewiss thinking involved a hierarchy: from plants,

the lowest form of life, to animals, humans, angels

and finally God. Lewis saw conflict in the world of

plants, where the competition for light and nutri-

ents caused some plants to succeed and some to die,

but he didnt think this was cruel: plants are not

sentient, so they dont feel pain or suffering.

The idea of animals preying on other animals

presents more of a problem, at least where the preyis sentient. Lewis, along with other theologians, felt

that this could not be the natural way of things and

that an evil power had altered nature in order to

cause more misery. (As The Screwtape Letters shows,

Lewis believed in Satan.)

If it offends less, you may say that the life-

force is corrupted, where I say that living

creatures were corrupted by an evil angelic

being. We mean the same thing: but I

find it easier to believe in a myth of godsand demons than in one of hypostatised

abstract nouns. C.S. Lewis, The Prob-

lem of Pain

In The Problem of Pain Lewis presented an imag-

ined glimpse of un-fallen humanity, as he had pre-

viously done in the fictional settings ofOut of the

Silent Planet and Perelandra. He believed humans had

fallen to a lower state, so that they were much more

like animals. Taking this idea further, he ventured

the idea that animals had fallen back to behaviourproper to vegetables - that the behaviour of preying

on each other was something natural to plants and

not to animals.

Despite these ideas, Lewis does not seem to have

believed that humans should be vegetarian: indeed,

he was known to poke fun at fashionable vegetari-

ans. Vegetarianism was not widespread in the 1950s,

nor was the knowledge that a vegetarian diet can be

healthy, so Lewiss attitude is hardly surprising.

5.4 Pet heaven

Lewis, very unusually for the time, thought that

there ought to be some provision in Christianity for

resurrection or heaven for animals.

Resurrection would be meaningless for some an-

imals: If the life of a newt is merely a succession

of sensations, what should we mean by saying that

God may recall to life the newt that died to-day? It

would not recognise itself as the same newt. If the

newt was not aware enough to be made miserable or

happy by pain or pleasure, there would be no way toreward it or compensate it for its life on earth.

Domestic animals, though, obviously had some-

thing like a personality. Lewis thought that when

humans tamed animals, in accordance with their

God-given dominion over them, the animals became

more themselves.

To Lewis the practice of taming animals, and

making them more humanlike, was an obvious par-

allel to Gods way of making believing Christians

14


15/21


more Christlike. He suggested that domestic an-

imals might somehow achieve immortality in thecontext of their masters immortality. It is a com-

forting thought for anyone who has hoped to see

their beloved pet in heaven, though not much use

to a dog belonging to a non-Christian.

The talking animals of Narnia are a different case.

They have humanlike personalities and free will of

their own and seem to be responsible for their own

actions.

This chapter was taken from http://www.bbc.co.

uk/religion/religions/christianity/people/cslewis_1.

shtml#section_14.

15
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/people/cslewis_1.shtml#section_14http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/people/cslewis_1.shtml#section_14http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/people/cslewis_1.shtml#section_14


16/21

Chapter 6

The issues

This chapter is taken entirely from material at http://www.sustainabletable.org/ and in Eating Animals by

Jonathan Safran Foer. Get the book and visit the

website for more information.

6.1 Animal welfare

The basic structure of industrial farms is at odds

with the well-being of the animals they raise. Con-

fining animals indoors as closely together as possi-

ble, rather than letting them graze on open land,exposes them to high levels of toxins from decom-

posing manure. To counteract the disease inherent

in such conditions, animals are given constant low

daily doses of antibiotics which are contributing to

problems with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Though

they are also exposed to pesticides, other unhealthy

additives, and types of food they wouldnt normally

eat. The animals can also be bred and given hor-

mones only to increase production.

Cows

Calves born into dairy factories are usually removed

from their dam, or mother, after about 12 hours.

Male calves that are to be raised for veal are castrated

and sent to feedlots to be fattened. In rare cases

they are raised for breeding. The heifers, or young

female cows, are raised as replacement heifers on

the same farm or sold to another dairy farm where

they would replace aging members of the herd.

Calves are dehorned, extra teats are removed(cows have four teats, any more than that are con-

sidered extra), and they are usually fed a milk re-

placer. This practice can lead to the spread of BSE

(bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or Mad Cow

Disease) which is transmitted when cows are fed

byproducts of other infected animals and can cause

death in the animal it infects and/or significant

health risks to anyone who eats the meat of that an-

imal. See www.sustainabletable.org/issues/madcow

for more information. Calves also have about two-

thirds of their tails removed a process called taildocking, which is done without anesthetic and is

meant to keep the cow from developing infections

caused by constant exposure to manure something

that has yet to be proven effective. With so many cat-

tle in close quarters, the animals often suffer diseases

of the feet and udder from standing in their own

manure and being exposed to harsh weather con-

ditions. Close living conditions, excess hormones,

and a diet of corn (that cows do not digest well)

rather than grass provide a perfect environment for

disease to flourish.Once beef cows have grown to an adequate size

and dairy cows are no longer producing milk at an

acceptable rate, they are taken to be slaughtered.

While slaughterhouses are required to meet USDA

standards for cleanliness and humane treatment,

some process up to 400 cattle per hour, a speed

at which it is nearly impossible to guarantee each

is slaughtered within the regulation according to

Michigan State University. In addition, slaughter-

16
http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/madcowhttp://www.sustainabletable.org/http://www.sustainabletable.org/


17/21

The issues

houses have been reported as regularly failing to

completely stun animals before the process begins,resulting in cows being hung and bled while they

are still conscious.

At a typical slaughter facility, cattle are led

through a chute into a knocking box usually a large

cylindrical hold through which the head pokes. The

stun operator, or knocker, presses a large pneu-

matic gun between the cows eyes. A steel bolt

shoots into the cows skull and then retracts back

into the gun, usually rendering the animal uncon-

scious or causing death. Sometimes the bolt only

dazes the animal, which either remains conscious orlater wakes up as it is being processed. The effec-

tiveness of the knocking gun depends on its manu-

facture and maintenance, and the skill of its appli-

cation a small hose leak or firing the gun before

pressure sufficiently builds up again can reduce the

force with which the bolt is released and leave ani-

mals grotesquely punctured but painfully conscious.

The effectiveness of knocking is also reduced be-

cause some plant managers believe that animals can

become too dead and therefore, because their

hearts are not pumping, bleed out too slowly or in-sufficiently. (Its important for plants to have a

quick bleed-out time for basic efficiency and because

blood left in the meat promotes bacterial growth and

reduces shelf life.) As a result, some plants deliber-

ately choose less-effective knocking methods. The

side effect is that a higher percentage of animals re-

quire multiple knocks, remain conscious, or wake

up in processing.

No jokes here, and no turning away. Lets say

what we mean: animals are bled, skinned, and dis-

membered while conscious. It happens all the time,and the industry and the government know it. Sev-

eral plants cited for bleeding or skinning or dismem-

bering live animals have defended their actions as

common in the industry and asked, perhaps rightly,

why they were being singled out.

In twelve seconds or less, the knocked cow un-

conscious, semiconscious, fully conscious, or dead

moves down the line to arrive at the shackler,

who attaches a chain around one of the hind legs

and hoists the animal into the air.

From the shackler, the animal, now danglingfrom a leg, is mechanically moved to a sticker,

who cuts the carotid arteries and a jugular vein in

the neck. The animal is again mechanically moved

to a bleed rail and drained of blood for several

minutes. A cow has in the neighborhood of five

and a half gallons of blood, so this takes some time.

Cutting the flow of blood to the animals brain will

kill it, but not instantly (which is why the animals

are supposed to be unconscious). If the animal is

partially conscious or improperly cut, this can re-

strict the f low of blood, prolonging consciousnessfurther. Theyd be blinking and stretching their

necks from side to side, looking around, really fran-

tic, explained one line worker.

The cow should now be carcass, which will move

along the line to a head-skinner, which is exactly

what it sounds like a stop where the skin is peeled

off the head of the animal. The percentage of cattle

still conscious at this stage is low but not zero. At

some plants it is a regular problem so much so

that there are informal standards about how to deal

with these animals. Explains a worker familiar withsuch practices, A lot of times the skinner finds out

an animal is still conscious when he slices the side of

its head and it starts kicking wildly. If that happens,

or if a cow is already kicking when it arrives at their

station, the skinners shove a knife into the back of

its head to cut the spinal cord.

This practice, it turns out, immobilizes the animal

but does not render it insensible. I cant tell you how

many animals this happens to, as no one is allowed

to properly investigate. We only know that it is an

inevitable by-product of the present slaughter systemand that it will continue to happen.

After the head-skinner, the carcass (or cow) pro-

ceeds to the leggers, who cut off the lower portions

of the animals legs. As far as the ones that come

back to life, says a line worker, it looks like theyre

trying to climb the walls. And when they get to

the leggers, well, the leggers dont want to wait to

start working on the cow until somebody gets down

there to reknock it. So they just cut off the bottom

17


18/21

The issues

part of the leg with the clippers. When they do that,

the cattle go wild, just kicking in every direction.The animal then proceeds to be completely

skinned, eviscerated, and cut in half, at which point

it finally looks like the stereotyped image of beef

hanging in freezers with eerie stillness.

Pigs

On a factory farm, once impregnated, a sow, or

mother pig is placed into a small crate, completely

limiting her movement.

More serious and pervasive is the suffering causedby boredom and isolation and the thwarting of

the sows powerful urge to prepare for her com-

ing piglets. In nature, she would spend much of

her time before giving birth foraging and ultimately

would build a nest of grass, leaves, or straw. To

avoid excessive weight gain and to further reduce

feed costs, the crated sow will be feed restricted and

often hungry. Pigs also have an inborn tendency to

use separate areas for sleeping and defecating that

is totally thwarted in confinement. The pregnant

pigs, like most all pigs in industrial systems, mustlie or step in their excrement to force it through the

slatted floor. The industry defends such confine-

ment by arguing that it helps control and manage

animals better, but the system makes good welfare

practices more difficult because lame and diseased

animals are almost impossible to identify when no

animals are allowed to move.

Many pigs go insane due to the confinement and

obsessively chew on their cage bars, incessantly press

their water bottles, or drink urine. Others exhibit

mourning behaviors that animal scientists describeas learned helplessness.

Before giving birth the sows are transferred to a

slightly larger crate that will allow her piglets to feed.

Once the piglets are weaned, they are separated

from their mother and confined in pens with con-

crete floors. Rooting, or digging in the dirt and

straw, is a natural activity for pigs; and when re-

stricted from this activity, they show visible signs of

stress and aggression, such as tail biting. The con-

crete floors have also been linked to skeletal defor-

mities of the feet, and the poorly ventilated con-fines result in frequent lung damage and pneumo-

nia. The stress and mistreatment pigs experience

during transport, in combination with illness and

injury arising from poor housing conditions, cause

many to die on the way to the slaughterhouse.

As in any kind of factory, uniformity is essential.

Piglets that dont grow fast enough the runts are

a drain on resources and so have no place on the

farm. Picked up by their hind legs, they are swung

and then bashed headfirst onto the concrete floor.

This common practice is called thumping. Wevethumped as many as 120 in one day, said a worker

from a Missouri farm.

We just swing them, thump them, then

toss them aside. Then, after youve

thumped ten, twelve, fourteen of them,

you take them to the chute room and

stack them for the dead truck. And

if you go in the chute room and some

are still alive, then you have to thump

them all over again. Thereve been timesIve walked in that room and theyd be

running around with an eyeball hanging

down the side of their face, just bleeding

like crazy, or their jaw would be broken.

Chickens

Broilers (chickens raised for meat) are bred to grow

muscle at an unnaturally fast rate that is often not

matched by bone growth and can cause serious de-

formities, leaving the chickens unable to walk. Lay-ers (chickens used to lay eggs) can essentially be

starved for up to two weeks to induce molting and

increased egg production once the feeding cycle is

resumed. About 98 percent of chickens used in

egg production live in cages with a base about the

size of a standard piece of printing paper. Broiler

chickens are often reared at similarly high densities

in pens with concrete slatted floors or occasionally

litter (straw) covered concrete floors. Due to these

18


19/21

The issues

stressful conditions, chickens often become aggres-

sive and can peck each other to death. To preventthis, it is common practice to sear off about half

their beaks, causing severe and lasting pain.

Male layers

What happens to all of the male offspring of layers? If

man hasnt designed them for meat, and nature

clearly hasnt designed them to lay eggs, what func-

tion do they serve?

They serve no function. Which is why all male lay-

ers half of all the layer chickens born in the UnitedStates, more than 250 million chicks a year are de-

stroyed.

Destroyed? That seems like a word worth knowing

more about.

Most male layers are destroyed by being sucked

through a series of pipes onto an electrified plate.

Other layer chicks are destroyed in other ways, and

its impossible to call those animals more or less

fortunate. Some are tossed into large plastic con-

tainers. The weak are trampled to the bottom,

where they suffocate slowly. The strong suffocateslowly at the top. Others are sent fully conscious

through macerators (picture a wood chipper filled

with chicks).

Fish

Many other species die

Perhaps the quintessential example of bullshit, by-

catch refers to sea creatures caught by accident ex-

cept not really by accident, since bycatch has beenconsciously built into contemporary fishing meth-

ods. Modern fishing tends to involve much technol-

ogy and few fishers. This combination leads to mas-

sive catches with massive amounts of bycatch. Take

shrimp, for example. The average shrimp-trawling

operation throws 80 to 90 percent of the sea animals

it captures overboard, dead or dying, as bycatch. (En-

dangered species amount to much of this bycatch.)

Shrimp account for only 2 percent of global seafood

by weight, but shrimp trawling accounts for 33 per-

cent of global bycatch. We tend not to think aboutthis because we tend not to know about it. What

if there were labeling on our food letting us know

how many animals were killed to bring our desired

animal to our plate? So, with trawled shrimp from

Indonesia, for example, the label might read: 26

pounds of other sea animals were killed and tossed

back into the ocean for every 1 pound of this shrimp.

Imagine being served a plate of sushi. But this

plate also holds all of the animals that were killed

for your serving of sushi. The plate might have to

be five feet across.

Cruelty

Longlines today can reach seventy-five miles thats

enough line to cross the English Channel more than

three times. An estimated 27 million hooks are

deployed every day. And longlines dont kill just

their target species, but 145 others as well. One

study found that roughly 4.5 million sea animals are

killed as bycatch in longline fishing every year, in-

cluding roughly 3.3 million sharks, 1 million mar-lins, 60,000 sea turtles, 75,000 albatross, and 20,000

dolphins and whales.

Trawling and longline fishing arent only ecolog-

ically worrisome; they are also cruel. In trawlers,

hundreds of different species are crushed together,

gashed on corals, bashed on rocks for hours and

then hauled from the water, causing painful decom-

pression (the decompression sometimes causes the

animals eyes to pop out or their internal organs

to come out their mouths). On longlines, too, the

deaths animals face are generally slow. Some are sim-ply held there and die only when removed from the

lines. Some die from the injury caused by the hook

in their mouths or by trying to get away. Some are

unable to escape attack by predators.

Purse seines, the final fishing method Im going

to discuss, are the main technology used for catching

Americas most popular seafood, tuna. A net wall is

deployed around a school of target fish, and once the

school is encircled, the bottom of the net is pulled to-

19


20/21

The issues

gether as if the fishers were tugging on a giant purse

string. The trapped target fish and any other crea-tures in the vicinity are then winched together and

hauled onto the deck. Fish tangled in the net may

be slowly pulled apart in the process. Most of these

sea animals, though, die on the ship itself, where

they will slowly suffocate or have their gills cut while

conscious. In some cases, the fish are tossed onto

ice, which can actually prolong their deaths. Ac-

cording to a recent study published in Applied Ani-

mal Behaviour Science, fish die slowly and painfully

over a period as long as fourteen minutes after being

tossed fully conscious into an ice slurry (somethingthat happens to both wild-caught and farmed fish).

Does all this matter matter enough that we

should change what we eat? Maybe all we need is

better labels so we can make wiser decisions about

the fish and fish products we buy? What conclusion

would most selective omnivores reach if attached to

each salmon they ate was a label noting that 2.5-foot-

long farmed salmon spend their lives in the equiva-

lent of a bathtub of water and that the animals eyes

bleed from the intensity of the pollution? What if

the label mentioned the explosions of parasite popu-lations, increases in diseases, degraded genetics, and

new antibiotic-resistant diseases that result from fish

farming?

6.2 Climate change

According to the United Nations Food and Agri-

culture Organization, livestock production alone

contributes 18 percent of the global warming ef-

fectmore than the entire transportation sector.

The global food system is particularly damaging to

the climate because it is responsible for significant

emissions of methane and nitrous oxide, which have

respectively 23 and 296 times greater global warming

effects than carbon dioxide.

On the Farm

Industrial farms rely heavily on fossil fuels and petro-

chemicals to power machinery, artificially fertilize

soil, protect against pests, and stave off weeds. With

one-third of the worlds cereal harvest and 90 per-cent of its soy harvest being raised for animal feed,

the energy required to grow those crops is a major

factor in these on-farm emissions. In the United

States, half of all synthetic fertilizer is used for an-

imal feed crops.

The Livestock Liability

Livestock are a major source of methane emissions.

Ruminant livestock (those with complex digestive

systems that regurgitate and re-chew their food), in-cluding cattle, buffalo, sheep, and goats, are the

main agricultural sources of methane. Ruminants

digest through microbial, or enteric fermentation,

which produces methane that is released by the an-

imals through belching and, to a lesser degree via

their, er, tailpipes. While this enables ruminants

to digest fibrous grasses, it also accounts for one-

quarter of all heat-trapping emissions from the live-

stock sector.

Waste is another problem. In sustainable farm-

ing systems, there is no such thing as waste: manureis used as fertilizer. But in confined animal feed-

ing operations (CAFOs) waste is stored in huge ma-

nure lagoons that emit methane and nitrous ox-

ide. Due to its vast network of factory farms, the

United States scores at the top of the world list for

methane emissions from manure.

All told, the sheer number of animals being raised

for meat today accounts for nearly 20 percent of

greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. In 1965, 10

billion livestock animals were slaughtered for meat;

today, that number is 55 billion.

On the Land

Rainforests and wetlands play a vital role in climate

stability because they sequester carbon, absorbing

and storing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in

the soils and plants, while also replenishing oxygen

through photosynthesis. The biggest threat to these

lands is the expansion of pasture for cattle, feed

20


21/21

The issues

crops for livestock, and oil palm for processed foods

and biofuels. Most of these land use changes areconcentrated in just a handful of countries, notably

Brazil and Malaysia.

6.3 Animal waste

The most successful legal battles against hog factory

farms in the United States have focused on their

incredible potential to pollute. (When people talk

about the environmental toll of animal agriculture,

this is a large part of what theyre talking about.)The problem is quite simple: massive amounts of

shit. So much shit, so poorly managed, that it seeps

into rivers, lakes, and oceans killing wildlife and

polluting air, water, and land in ways devastating to

human health.

Today a typical pig factory farm will produce 7.2

million pounds of manure annually, a typical broiler

facility will produce 6.6 million pounds, and a typi-

cal cattle feedlot 344 million pounds. The General

Accounting Office (GAO) reports that individual

farms can generate more raw waste than the popula-tions of some U.S. cities. All told, farmed animals

in the United States produce 130 times as much

waste as the human population roughly 87,000

pounds of shit per second. The polluting strength

of this shit is 160 times greater than raw municipal

sewage. And yet there is almost no waste-treatment

infrastructure for farmed animals no toilets, ob-

viously, but also no sewage pipes, no one hauling

it away for treatment, and almost no federal guide-

lines regulating what happens to it. (The GAO re-

ports that no federal agency even collects reliabledata on factory farms or so much as knows the num-

ber of permitted factory farms nationally and there-

fore cannot effectively regulate them.)

Imagine it. Imagine if, instead of the mas-

sive waste-treatment infrastructure that we take for

granted in modern cities, every man, woman, and

child in every city and town in all of California and

all of Texas crapped and pissed in a huge open-air

pit for a day. Now imagine that they dont do this

for just a day, but all year round, in perpetuity. To

comprehend the effects of releasing this amount ofshit into the environment, we need to know some-

thing of whats in it. In his tremendous Rolling

Stone article on Smithfield, Boss Hog, Jeff Tietz

compiled a useful list of shit typically found in the

shit of factory-farmed hogs: ammonia, methane,

hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, cyanide, phos-

phorus, nitrates and heavy metals. In addition, the

waste nurses more than 100 microbial pathogens

that can make humans sick, including salmonella,

cryptosporidium, streptococci and girardia (thus

children raised on the grounds of a typical hog fac-tory farm have asthma rates exceeding 50 percent

and children raised near factory farms are twice as

likely to develop asthma). And not all of the shit

is shit, exactly its whatever will fit through the

slatted floors of the factory farm buildings. This

includes but is not limited to: stillborn piglets, af-

terbirths, dead piglets, vomit, blood, urine, antibi-

otic syringes, broken bottles of insecticide, hair, pus,

even body parts.

A worker in Michigan, repairing one ofthe lagoons, was overcome by the smell

and fell in. His 15-year-old nephew

dived in to save him but was overcome,

the workers cousin went in to save the

teenager but was overcome, the workers

older brother dived in to save them but

was overcome, and then the workers fa-

ther dived in. They all died in pig shit.

21

Christian Perspectives on Meat Eating

Documents

Transcript of Christian Perspectives on Meat Eating