But they will still sell eggs, pork, chicken, etc. and are not totally cutting out suppliers who don't follow the welfare guidelines.

I've read dozens of comments from PETA members on this blog saying that it's not good to emphasize welfare and making meat production and slaugther better. So why is PETA making that a goal and bragging about success? It seems like a contradiction. Or is it that the organization is in favor of welfare and pushing more humane slaughter methods but the individual members disagree with that goal and only want total bans?

Posted by: Mabel | February 11, 2008 12:41 PM

This is WONDERFUL.....
My husband and my daughter and myself just sent that alert letter last night.
I don't know how we missed it.
We also told them we would get our Medications somewhere else and gave them our name.
Peace!

Posted by: Judith, Freedom Fighter for Animals | February 11, 2008 01:17 PM

I shop at Safeway cause other then them there's not too much as far as grocery stores here. So I am please with them and will let them know what a wonderful switch they made and how influential this can become! Way too go Safeway!! Now if Superstore, IGA and Sobey's can also follow suit!!

Posted by: Carla | February 11, 2008 01:33 PM

This is great news. A big step forward. Did Safeway mention any dates?

Posted by: Jaclyn | February 11, 2008 02:18 PM

I know that there is controversy on this issue, but if all animal raised for meat were given "free range", treated as pets, (i.e. cows treated as well as a beloved horse)and given proper conditions, there would be less animals raised in total.

Factory farming was ONLY created because of high demand for meat and dairy. That way animals can be crammed into small spaces and be mass produced.

If we go back to old fashioned, pasture, grass fed style farming, less meat will be available, so people will be motivated to go vegetarian at least some of the time.

Grass fed, pasture style farms are not as toxic for the environment. And don't forget, even if everyone went vegetarian, we would still have chickens and cows on farms.

The best move would be to pressure the USDA to make "certified humane" REAL and truly humane, if at all possible, and to let people know that "cage free" only means that the animals are let out for 5 minutes a day!

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | February 11, 2008 02:27 PM

Does this include Canadian Safeways?

And is Safeway advertising the fact that they have taken this step?

thanks!

Posted by: donna | February 11, 2008 02:28 PM

Maya

No farming is going back to anything. The name of the game is money/profits. There is no concern for animals whatsoever. But you and others are buying into this humane crap and even more animals are dying horrible deaths after living short miserable lives. These animals are babies when they are killed. Even your pet horses are being sent to slaughter (Canada and Mexico). As long as the demand for flesh continues animals will die. This is the corporate PR that you and others have bought in to and these coprorations love it. It is very easy to speak of "humane" anything when you're not the one being slaughtered.

Education and example is the way to change people's minds and hearts not leading them to a butcher shop that claims to have "humane organic flesh".

FARM , Friends of Animals, Vegan Outreach are just a few abolitionist groups to consider. HSUS sounds like an org made for you. On this we differ.

Peace to you and animals dying violent painful deaths whether from factory or "humane" farms.

Posted by: Ana | February 11, 2008 03:44 PM

Thanks Ana, bottom line so true.

Posted by: Carla | February 11, 2008 04:23 PM

mabel, there are a small percentage that won't be happy about such developments, it does make their goal of nil animal use that little bit harder.

peta realises that it is better to back improved conditions for animals because they ultimately have the animals best interests at heart. Their welfare.

maya, i think factory farming grew as an extention of overwinter housing and feeding. The production systems were already in place and worked well for half the year to start with. the systems then spread around the world, even to countries where winter is practically non-existant.
Periods of factory farming are inevitable for cold climates, much to the animals benefit. (I'm assuming animals don't like to be cold and wet either).

Posted by: rojo | February 11, 2008 04:37 PM

Hi Ana!

You know I respect your opinion, so don't think it goes unconsidered!! ;)

We can agree to disagree on this one, and my goal will always be to change the USDA's stance, especially since vegetarians would still purchase dairy products.

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | February 11, 2008 04:37 PM

This may not save many (or any) lives, but it is at least a step towards heightened awareness, compassion and eventually (though probably not in my lifetime) a wholesale refusal to participate in cruelty.

And it's not the first I've heard of Safeway taking the high road. The Von's chain here in Southern California is part of the Safeway corporation and they are the only major supermarket chain here that does NOT spraypaint the food they discard in their dumpsters. The other major chains (Ralph's, Albertsons, etc.) are apparently doing this because of liability concerns arising from homeless/hungry people scavenging in their dumpsters. Sorry, but that's the lamest excuse I've ever heard. Especially when Von's doesn't appear to have been hurt by making the compassionate choice.

Of course, in a perfect world, no sentient being would be abused and killed for another's pleasure. But until then, each small step towards a cruelty-free world is, IMO, cause for celebration.

Posted by: Nancy | February 11, 2008 04:57 PM

I think its brilliant companies like this are deciding to make these changes, BUT let’s hope they actually do what they say they'll do, I would have thought that Safeway made these changes when PETA announced their ‘victory’ back in 2002?

Although everyone of us would prefer a vegetarian or vegan world, we as a movement helping animals need to be realistic in our approach and understand that the world just wont go vegan over night, but, in the meantime whilst we are asking people to go vegetarian and hoping they’ll go vegan in the long run -- lets try and cut out the most awful practices inside the slaughterhouse and on the factory farm making life a small bit more comfortable for the animals, although I do battle with the thoughts of how life is for animals who will be killed, I often wonder they must know their fate awaits them but i am not sure if these changes will make any difference to the animals, but it’s best to keep a positive approach and thank companies for doing something ‘positive’ to help animals.

Posted by: John Carmody | February 11, 2008 05:14 PM

Ana,

So do you think PETA is wrong on this? Should PETA not have lobbied Safeway for humane regulations and stop advertising its success? I'm confused from your post about whether you support this by PETA or not.

Posted by: Ashes | February 11, 2008 05:28 PM

Mabel,

You can't generalize. What some members of PETA would like, and what PETA the organization actually does, can be two separate entities.

I'm sure a lot of PETA members would prefer total abolition. This does not mean incremental progress is denigrated, either by PETA or its members.

"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | February 11, 2008 07:30 PM

ana, farming will go "back" if the consumer is willing to pay the added cost of production. Look at organic farmings successful growth, dubious benefits but the consumer is willing to pay, and the farmer happy to oblige. The consumer is indictating that he/she wants to eat baby animals by paying a premium. Veal though is only approx 1% of production in Australia, http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/7218.0.55.001/and I can only presume baby lamb and suckling pig percentages are even lower. People should however eat older animals, as fewer deaths need to occur because they have more meat.

The success of the welfare movement, aided by strong groups like peta, is ensuring that humane practices are enforced in abattoirs. The captive bolt stun gun renders the animal senseless before exsanguination
(unfortunately not for halal or kosher meat). Quality meat depends on the animals stress levels remaining low during slaughter. Not only in the best interests of the animal, but the actual product as well. "Dying horrible deaths" is counterproductive in any sense - speed, quality or even just straight out morality.

I don't quite understand why a horse shouldn't be used for food when it is going to be killed anyway. Pet cats and dogs would have to eat some other once-living being. I do see the emotional buttons you're pushing, but why are horses more important than cows?

Posted by: rojo | February 12, 2008 07:33 AM

Mike, very well said!

I can only speak for myself, but I see this as a very important step. I see lots of zoos, for example, that breed animals just to live in captivity, and some that take them right from the wild. I think this is disgusting. I would like to see all zoos like this closed down.

However, when I see a margay in a dark metal cage, not even able to stand up or turn around, I am going to fight for that animal to have a humane enclosure where it can see sunlight, walk on the grass, run and play and be treated correctly.

Same with cows, pigs and so on. When I began working with animals, I promised myself that I would never turn my back on an animal who was suffering, and I never will. That's why I'm glad PETA is caring for those who are suffering, as we speak!

Posted by: Maya, CVT | February 12, 2008 11:23 AM

Hey Rojo! Geez I missed your comment earlier.

I can't speak for Ana, but I think what she is saying is that in any slaughter, even if one is okay with the killing, any animal slaughter entails brutal and cruel actions, no matter how it's done. I do think she has a point.

From what I understand, dogs can do okay on a vegetarian diet if one works with a vet on proper nutrition. Cats, absolutely not. If vegetarianism remains in existence one would still have cows and chickens used for dairy and I assume if they died of natural causes they could perhaps be used for pet food in some ideal situation where humans stopped eating meat altogether.

And Rojo I just had to answer your lemming question!! :) It was great. Lemmings run in "packs" and follow the "elder" leaders as they run around near cliffs, and sometimes, especially if the leader gets older and has compromised eyesight, brain function or coordination, the leader winds up running over a cliff and lemmings will just follow. They don't commit suicide. ;)

Great question. How's Australia? ;)

Posted by: Anonymous | February 12, 2008 12:15 PM

Hello Maya!

Thanks!

People who eat animals are very comfortable with doing so with or without the extreme painful conditions that animals endure months before they are murdered. By encouraging to eat the propagandized "humane" flesh what incentives exist to give up their "happy meals"? None. Again, it is very easy to dictate what happens to the other animals when your lives are not on the line. None of you are suffering under extreme conditions and being killed as babies in order to be eaten.
Abolitionists are realistic and do not water down their philosophy/stance to assuage others nor do they capitualte to PR ploy by money-hungry animal-killing corporations. Would you feel better if the traps were padded for fur-bearing animals or should we end the use of fur? I think the fur-bearers would rather wear their own skin. Animal welfarists shout loud and clear that animal rights cannot be and because of this even more animals continue to die. And even though I am a PETA member, as I have written before, I do not agree with everything that PETA does. But I do agree wholeheartedly with the aforementioned groups that I wrote previously about. 2012?? Laughable.

Is rape less of a rape if the rapist wears a condom??....HHHHHMMMM....I thought so.

Posted by: Ana | February 12, 2008 12:34 PM

One problem with the captive bolt gun is because of user error or time pressure, the animal may not be effectively stunned and may regain consciousness as she continues down the line.

In the States, 95% accuracy is generally the accepted figure for effective, accurately-aimed stunning. Since last year in the States 39,000,000 cattle and calves were slaughtered (USDA 2007), that means 1,950,000 animals were not stunned properly—a number that is unacceptably high. The USDA should make humane slaughter a top priority, but at the moment they certainly don't.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | February 12, 2008 02:54 PM

Hi Ana - all very good points. I'm just not completely sure I understand how meat eaters are being turned into vegetarians. It seems like an abolitionist may have a strong viewpoint, but I've never seen a meat eater become a vegetarian using this kind of awareness.

I'm just worried that steadfast vegans may save animals themselves, but may not have a plan that actually changes anyone else. Of the people I know, I've seen more people go from vegetarian back to meat eating than I have from meat eating to vegetarian.

In that case, I feel like nothing is changing, so I wonder what the plan is.

Posted by: Maya, CVT | February 12, 2008 03:53 PM

After giving up meat of any kind so many years ago, I delight in hearing that some food store is going to be compassionate with its care and killing of any animal.
But what in the hell is compassionate about a steer or a cow having their legs chopped off while they are still alive, and yes they scream, as told by a slaughterhouse worker in Iowa. They scream why are you doing this to me, what have I done to deserve this.
This just makes me ill.
I just finished reading a book call "The World Peace Diet" by the amazing Dr. Will Tuttle. I worship very few people, but this man is one of them.
So yes, this is a step foward, but I only pray that someday there will be no meat of any kind on any shelve.
Peace!

Posted by: Judith, Freedom Fighter for Animals | February 12, 2008 04:59 PM

Ana,

Again I agree with you and appreciate your partcipation on this blog.

I must disagree with you on one point though. I do not encourage (in fact I discourage) support for Friends of Animals. FOA claims to be abolitionist, yet they walk in lockstep with the welfarist HSUS in their dogmatic opposition to direct action.

-----

On the topic of this Safeway "Victory":

I've been a member of PETA for 3 1/2 years and support everything they do that is in accord with their motto "Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment." PETA does a lot of great work that is consistent with this ethic.

That being said, I would not call this a "victory", I would call it a defeat. It does nothing to advance PETA's animal rights agenda and gives free advertising and PR to a company that sells the flesh and secretions of exploited animals.

Contrary to popular belief, welfare reforms do not make lives better for the animals currently imprisoned to be slaughtered for food. It's not like these corporations immediately cut down the battery cages and move the animals into the larger cage (meaning: the floor of large building) upon agreeing to reforms. The change begins (if it even begins at all) with future animals used for food, usually years later.

Do not be deceived: welfare reforms are not changing anything for the animals currently being slaughtered. These marginal changes only come with future animals used for food (again, if they even begin at all).

Meanwhile, as an abolitionist animal rights advocate, I reject such strategies as morally problematic (as they reinforce the property status of animals) and an ineffective use of time (as they distract from the real issue - using animals for our purposes). As more and more people become vegetarian and subsequently vegan, the animal exploitation industries will reform themselves to stay profitable.

It is a zero-sum game. All of the time and money spent on welfare reform is time and money that could have been spent promoting veganism. For it is veganism, which strikes the roots and shifts the paradigm from animal use to animal rights. Veganism will help bring down this unjust system.

Many will argue that it is hopeless to advocate abolition because it will never be acheived. If we all took this fatalistic view, we would never achieve abolition.

Our society teaches us that it is moral to use living sentient nonhumans as resources - for food, clothing, experimentation, entertainment, and other purposes. Most do not question this point.

We must continue to educate people that they do have a choice. They don't have to support the use of animals as property. Considering the fact that we can be completely healthy on a 100% plant-based vegan diet and can choose this alternative, killing an animal for food is completely unnecessary, unjust, and wrong. We can eat a wide variety of plant-based foods, wear many different plant fibers such as cotton, conduct non-animal product tests and medical experiments (which are also more valid and reliable), and support non-animal forms of entertainment (like circuses without nonhuman animals such Cirque du Soleil and view animals in their natural habitats instead of zoos).

I think once people are confronted with the vegan message, they may initially fight against it (because it is in opposition to mainstream thinking). However, if they critically analyze what we are saying, I do not think they will ultimately reject it. I believe they will make changes in their life and eventually adopt our position.

If we want to shift the paradigm from animal use to animal rights, we must never give up or compromise.

Above all, this is an issue of justice: and justice does not demand reform, it demands abolition!

Posted by: Brandon Becker | February 12, 2008 05:19 PM

Hi mike, no doubt about operator error, happens in every walk of life. Thats not to say it can't be improved. I believe the 95% refers to the first attempt at stunning, and indeed some animals according to the USDA vets have 2 hits. The thing about concussion/shock is that even if you are conscious, you're still not fully aware. Add to that the lack of blood flow to the brain.

I hate to think of the actual percentage of animals killed without stunning of any kind for religious purposes, or under third world conditions.

Posted by: rojo | February 12, 2008 06:33 PM

anon,maya?, thanks for the lemming answer. Old age has it's drawbacks.

I do understand Ana's point about the brutal nature of slaughter, but it doesn't mean the animal is suffering. I see the same sort of argument here when libbers get upset about joeys(baby kangaroos) being swung headfirst against a tree, bullbar, wheel etc. It's not a graceful death, but is fast and consequently painless- not like starving.
Slow agonising deaths are not condusive to quality meat, it is in everyones best interests to ensure the least amount of stress to the animal.

Aust. is pretty good at the minute, we've had some severe drought but recent rains have left the pastures looking a treat along with some very happy cattle and sheep. Some of the young ones haven't seen fresh grass before, it must be a culinary delight.
Spent the weekend in Sydney which was very nice, catching up with the in-laws and friends.

Posted by: rojo | February 12, 2008 07:01 PM

Ana, first of all, I respect your opinion, your commitment and your compassion. As to your question about whether a rape is less of a rape if the rapist wears a condom... of course not. But isn't it better if the victim isn't left with a disease or pregnancy on top of the violence and humiliation?

By the same token, I don't believe for a second that "humane" slaughter makes it any less of a murder. But the fact that huge corporations are beginning to even acknowledge animal suffering is a major shift that stands to have an enormous impact on their competitors' and the public's awareness of the issue (even if it does begin with a false sense of what is "humane").

I do agree with you, though, that the inevitable labeling of this flesh as "humane" will (initially) reduce the incentive to go flesh-free. But I think that meat eaters who choose this option over conventional flesh will do so out of an increasing awareness of what is--to us and the animals--painfully obvious. With their awareness raised, they are far more likely to hear the truth when confronted with it. I've seen it happen to 3 friends in the past year, resulting in 3 new vegetarians... which means countless lives saved.

So what I'm trying to say is that I agree that this is not the final answer... not by a long shot. And I don't think PETA sees it that way at all. But it does stand to make people a lot more receptive to the truth about meat... which is, for most people, a prerequisite to giving it up completely.

Posted by: Nancy | February 13, 2008 01:01 AM

Safeway/Dominicks is one of the WORST companies to work for. Its great that these changes are being made.

Posted by: Julia | February 13, 2008 02:21 AM

Hello Maya!!!
Peace and blessings to you!

This is an international animal rights (abolitionist), www.animalequality.net, from Spain (in English). Take a look at their position. Also read the article "Abolition of Animal Exploitation: The Journey Will Not Begin While We Are Walking Backwards" by Francione, Gary L. Luckily, AE has it on its website. Francione writes eloquently what my position is. Let me know if it elicits a response from you! :)

Look at the other websites as well and read about their successes. It is disconcerting to read about your doubts. Why bother to advocate for the other animals if you don't believe they can be liberated???

Posted by: Ana | February 13, 2008 01:02 PM

Rojo,

Agreed. No offense intended to any religion, but to me proper stunning to make the animal totally insensitive before slaughter should always take precedence over ritualistic slaughter.

That's one reason I became veg—since I knew I could never perform the slaughter myself, I thought I was being hypocritical to pay someone else to do it for me.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | February 13, 2008 02:38 PM

Hi Ana, sweetie.

I think we're at a stalemate on this one LOL, and that's okay. My strongest beleif is that I want all animals to be free from exploitation.

But for those like cows and zoo animals, I want them to live in better conditions -- right now --

That does not mean I do not think they can be liberated. That simply means that they should not spend one more second in a tiny cage, in their own feces, in a dark space, isolated, alone, in pain.

Right this second I want every animal to feel sunlight, run on the grass, be treated well and have companionship. That's all. ;)

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | February 13, 2008 03:15 PM

Nancy - WELL said. I wish I had the power of pen that you've have.

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | February 13, 2008 03:17 PM

ps

Ana, by the way I meant to say, I will absolutely read those websites - thank you for posting them!! I will get back to you. Keep up the fight, sister.

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | February 13, 2008 03:29 PM

Gary Francione, Friends of Animals and the rest of the so-called "abolitionists" haven't gotten Safeway or any other such company to kill one less animal so let's cut the crap. They are dealing in theory, PETA is dealing in reality.

Posted by: Spare me | February 13, 2008 06:18 PM

Any kind of step towards progression is a Victory. Bear in mind the phrase "Rome wasn't built in a day." Even if grocery stores still sell products such as meat and eggs, it doesn't mean that they have not taken those first steps to victory.After all, there is no such thing as complete and unanimous reformity in today's world. I applaud PETA, and Whole Foods and the many others who are taking these steps towards a cruelty-free world.

Posted by: Amber | February 13, 2008 06:26 PM

hi Mike, I don't mean any disrespect to the various religions, they could just do with a more recent prophet to come along for an update. The texts outlining religion were written centuries ago (apart from scientology and jedi etc), a time when their GOD couldn't very well explain the tools that would be available in the future without causing lots of confusion.

I think you have become veg for the right reason - your own judgement, and not because you have been told how you should think.

Posted by: rojo | February 13, 2008 07:18 PM

Hello Maya!!!!

Well, we do agree that we want the animals free from harm and living their lives according to their needs!!!! That's good!!! :)

BTW, many feminists too numerous to name (Annie Besant for example) were vegetarian and animal advocates. Some , both British and American, founded orgs to help animals (but because they had no legal status, they had to get a man to sign for their orgs!!). The vegetarian feminists were at odds with feminists that wore fur, feathers and ate flesh. I wrote several long papers in graduate schools on these admirable women that fought for women's, children's and animal rights!! Fascinating.

Have a happy St. Valentines's Day filled with joy, love and laughter!!! Blesings!!!!

Posted by: Ana | February 14, 2008 09:02 AM

Hi Brandon

I am aware of FoA's position regarding direct action but I accept the fact that it is not perfect just as PETA is not perfect as well ( and we both are members of PETA). But I am sure that you can agree with the other orgs I mentioned, including the one from Spain (that specifically states it is abolitionist and through direct action rescued 4 piglets recently) that they actively carry out the spirit of abolition. FoA's position against direct action is absurd; these same people applaud the Underground Railroad and those involved with its execution. The Underground Rairoad was direct action.

I agree completely with your comment (February 12, 5:19), none of this is a victory. It is PR and the public has their consciences assuaged and the the animal killing industries get a merit badge of compassion. No animals saved from a violent death and even more animals continue to die for their flesh and bodily fluids. I am at least grateful to have another abolitionist that understands my position.

I do not contribute monetarily to these campaigns; it is a waste of money and time that could be well spent educating others about veganism such as FARM and Vegan Outreach does.

The operative word is justice. But first humans need to acknowledge the sentience of the other animals. "Livestock" is ludicrous; stock that lives!!??? We are still in the Medieval Period if/when people still do not believe that the other animals suffer and bleed just like human animals.
Justice for Animals!

Posted by: Ana | February 14, 2008 09:21 AM

I'm feeling kind of sappy after reading the exchange between Ana and Maya. I know it's unreasonable to expect us all to agree about everything with respect to animal rights, but I am just SO glad that there are people like you (as well as people like Mike, Carla, Judith, etc, etc) to speak up for animals in so many ways.

Posted by: Michele | February 14, 2008 11:20 AM

Thanks, Rojo. It certainly is time for the celestial Powers-That-Be to update their technology profile (lol).

(I had better watch what I say)

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | February 14, 2008 12:55 PM

does this mean i wont have to drive out of my way (kroger) for my vegan burgers, is safeway goinn vegan?.. (siav.org mrmcmed.org pcrm.org)

Posted by: indycar01 | February 14, 2008 01:00 PM

Michele,
Thank you so much.
You are one of the best posters here.
With so many feelings.
But a few posters agree to disagree and it can go on forever.
I know, I have been there.
I even have to leave my computer in order to take a short nap. LOL LOL Thats true
Judith

Posted by: Judith, Freedom Fighter for Animals | February 14, 2008 02:35 PM

This is a step in the right direction. And any step is good.
Having just moved to Canada from England however I have met a bunch of vegetarians here that shop without any knowledge of whats in the food they eat.
Perhaps we could move Safeway in the direction of not only printing nutritional value but also animal content in all products.
I know that the veggie sociey allows us more choice in Britain but really... being a vegetarian in North America... Much harder.

Posted by: DEP | February 14, 2008 03:19 PM

Spare me

Spare us your crap as well. These orgs I mentioned are not dealing with theories they are actively involved in saving animals. Theories gets no one anywhere human or non-human; actively pursuing changes does. Going vegan does make a diffence---for the animals, and that is what it's about. Not about you, me or egos.

Posted by: Ana | February 14, 2008 03:32 PM

Hi Michele:

Well, emotion is a good thing.

Let's all keep fighting the good fight.

Posted by: Ana | February 14, 2008 03:35 PM

Ana,

I'm glad you and I agree about supporting direct action. I think uncoventional means are a necessary part of abolitionist struggle.

-----

On this topic:

Welfarists only want less inhumane treatment for animals used for food, clothing, etc. For the most part, they do not question the human use of nonhuman animals, no matter how trivial such use may be.

When we talk about husbandry adjustments (aka "welfare" reforms), our discussion is on the animal exploiters' terms, within an unquestioning speciesist framework.

As animal rights activists, it is up to us to challenge this position. We must shift the debate to the question of whether it is morally right for humans to use animals for our purposes at all, regardless of how "humane" or inhumane we may treat those we exploit.

If we want to shift the paradigm from animal use to animal rights, let's speak plainly and forthright. You will find that many people you speak to are very receptive to the argument that animals are not ours to use and that cruelty is inherent in the system, even if they may not be vegan.

Our cultural socializes us to see animals as objects, not subjects, and it is a powerful force. We can help dismantle this unjust system by engaging in clear and uncompromising vegan and animal rights advocacy.

As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "Cowardice asks the question, Is it safe? Expediency asks the question, Is it politic? Vanity asks the question, Is it popular? But conscience asks the question, Is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because his conscience tells him that it is right."

Posted by: Brandon Becker | February 14, 2008 04:52 PM

animal advocates and flesh eaters

Folks, have you seen the latest horror in a kosher slaughterhouse on PETA. Take a look at how the cows, steer writhe in pain. Watch how horrible it is to have their throats slit and see the blood gushing out. No creature on earth deserves this agony and pain. And it is the innocent herbivores that are being slaughtered. Vegans like me. This is why I am vegan and an abolitionist. How horrible, when you see these acts of murder, you can become very skeptical about the presence of God, or at least wonder why God does not give us the power to stop these atrocities. We humans will never have peace as long as slaughterhouses exist.

Nancy

Thanks for your kind words. Keep fighting the good fight!

Justice for Animals!

Posted by: Ana | February 14, 2008 05:08 PM

I have so much respect for PETA and everyone here who fights for animal's rights.

I've been a PETA supporter since I was 14yrs old. I stopped consuming beef and pork around the same time. I've always loved animals and have dedicated my life to protecting them. In the past 20 years I've been an on-again, off-again consumer of seafood and poultry. Last February I went completely cold turkey (no disrespect for the turkeys). I've never felt happier or healthier. I've found an inner peace I've been struggling with all these years. Someone mentioned that an on-again, off-again vegetarian will eventually choose meat. I disagree if they are true animal lovers, their conscience will in the end take control.

I'm hoping to influence friends and family around me that vegetarianism is liberating!

Posted by: Michelle | February 14, 2008 05:41 PM

that is so cool!

Posted by: judith | February 14, 2008 07:57 PM

Are they also going to boycott Canadian seafood in regards to the seal hunt?

Posted by: Mike | February 14, 2008 08:49 PM

This is a step towards freedom for all animals. It should be celebrated.We all have a long long way to go . There are hundreds of thousands of people throughout the world working stopping every form of animal cruelty. Th question is are we all doing every thing we can? look deep inside and wonder.I have nothing but respect for what Peta is doing they have gone where no other organization has ever gone in the past and succeeded

Posted by: Susan manns | February 14, 2008 09:33 PM

Hi all, gee I wish all in the movement could support each other and all who are trying to help animals. We all have enough enemies, lets all focus on slagging them off eh?

Posted by: sharon | February 14, 2008 10:02 PM

How do we get Raleys to follow suit?

Posted by: carol Johnson | February 15, 2008 12:50 AM

I have to agree that a clean, bigger cage is better than a filthy, cramped one. But the bars are still there. That's the heart of the matter. Will incremental steps lead to liberation or will the cages just get bigger and better? There has to be some impetus to change the perception of animals as property and resources to individuals with their own rights.
Rosa Parks didn't move up row by row but took her place at the front of the bus. In the same way, I think it takes a bold uncompromising stand like Rosa's to assert and honour the dignity of animals and champion their right to liberty.

Posted by: lynda downie | February 15, 2008 06:19 AM

I agree. I hardly see this as something to celebrate especially when they are only saying that they will "encourage" less cruelty, not DEMAND IT & refuse to accept products from anyone who cannot prove that their animals are treated humanely & slaughtered in the most humane way possible. A contradiction in terms, but as long as there is a demand for meat this will continue & there needs to be laws & people put in place to ensure that the animals are treated in the most humane way from birth through death. I am not at all in support of PETA applauding a company that is only encouraging & considering better treatment & will certainly not thank Safeway until they have demanded it & stuck to it. This sounds like nothing more than a publicity spin that we have heard time & time again only to discover that horrific abuse is still going on while their profits increased due to the misinformed public.

Posted by: Darla | February 15, 2008 06:31 AM

Brandon

The animal welfarists are prolonging the animals' agony while even more continue to die.

Animal rights perceived as too radical contributes to prolonging the status of the other animals as property. Empathy is required of dedicated animal activists as well; if you could be that animal and suffer as they are would you want to be liberated or would you want a bigger cage?

The attitude that it is too difficult to get others to change to a vegan diet is counterproductive and negative. The women believed, with great determination, that they would be granted the vote. Animal advocates, unflinchingly and with courage, must believe we can liberate the other animals. The murder of animals is morally reprehensible and indefensible. If we purport to be moral animals then we should be that.

I refuse to call any of these encounters with animal killing enterprises as victories---because they are not. What really has been granted any creature?? You are condoning the continual murder of the other animals with the hope that they get fed some grass and their flesh get called organic. that's a victory?? For who?? You , the animal welfarist, the animal killing enterprises, othe the other animals??? HHHMMM, the other animals lose (their lives). They are all going to be slaughtered in the most sadistic, violent and cruel manner possible and the government does not care either. Animal advocate must care. A victory is seeing the closing down of slaughterhouses and factory farms and fur farms and labs and the list goes on. End the animals' slavery.

Posted by: Ana | February 15, 2008 01:40 PM

Thanks to Ana, Maya and all who've shared your thoughts and opinions on this topic. These posts reaffirm to me that the change we all want to see will come not by walking the high road alone, but by fanning out and walking every highway and byway that leads to a world where animals are treated with the same respect and compassion we afford each other (okay, maybe a bit more than that... ;P). With so many committed, compassionate people working towards the same goal, I'm more hopeful than ever that we'll get there.

Posted by: Nancy | February 15, 2008 02:18 PM

Thanks Nancy!!!! :)

Posted by: Ana | February 15, 2008 05:21 PM

Ana and Michele,
As always, I am with you all the way.
We shall keep fighting the good fight, until all earthlings are safe from harm.
We can not rest until this is done.
Peace!
Judith

If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian.
~Linda Mc Cartney~

Posted by: Judith, Freedom Fighter for Animals | February 16, 2008 12:51 PM

Thank you Nancy, and folks here - I think it's fine to disagree as long as we don't become divided! I always try to ponder what people have said. Some days I may be cranky or rushed and sound a bit over the top, but I never mean to! I have tons of respect for everyone here.

Just a side note, to me "welfare" and "advocate" are just semantic terms. However, I use them to mean that although I am vegetarian and will always promote total respect of all animal life, I prefer absolute non-violence and non-hostility.

I'M NOT SAYING ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS ARE VIOLENT OR BAD! I simply use the term welfare or advocate for myself, and my personal defenition is about respect of the law and other humans.

That means for me: no arson, no physical intimidation, no hostility and no making fun of people or being cruel or rude. That is just my personal code, not meant to imply anything about anyone else.

Again, it's semantics, but before slamming "welfare" advocates, I just think they should be asked how they define it. ;)

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | February 16, 2008 03:42 PM

I'm pretty confused by all the people who don't want to consider this a victory. It seems you would rather the animals continue to suffer by the billions exactly as they are because the more they suffer the easier it will be to convince others to go veg. Sounds pretty selfish to me. I would be thrilled if everyone on the face of the Earth woke up a vegetarian tomorrow and stayed that way, but I agree with Maya, Spare Me and all the others who understand that these changes take time and although we may have that luxury the animals suffering on factory farms right now don't--that abolition is only good in theory at the moment, an ideal that is nowhere close to coming to fruition. In the meanwhile ANYTHING that reduces the suffering of all of the billions of them, even if it's only a tiny bit, is a step in the right direction. You all seem to think this is an either/or, but it isn't. PETA is an animal rights, abolitionist organization. Unlike those attacking them, though, PETA is able to multitask and work twice as hard to convince the world to go veg while simultaneously improving conditions for animals in desperate need.
I do have a question for those of you who are opposed to this type of work: How do you feel about PETA's doghouse program? Since they can't get the dogs off their chains (even though they try) should they just leave them there to shiver in the cold on principle? Of course dogs deserve better and none should be regulated to that sort of life, but if they already are and there's little you can do for that animal at that moment what's so wrong with providing her with a few creature comforts?

Posted by: Spay and neuter immediately, please | February 19, 2008 01:39 PM

Dear Michelle, you run a much better chance staying a vegetarian if you do it for the ethical reasons.
In a test for those who gave up meat because they thought it would be healther for them.
They did nor care about the animals. 80% went back to meat. 90% remained
vegetarians.
That happened right here in San Diego.
SO COME ON MICHELLE, MANY OF US WILL HELP YOU, JUST REMEMBER, YOU ARE GIVING UP MEAT FOR THE ETHICAL REASONS>>>GOOD LUCK
Peace!!!!!Judith

Posted by: Judith, Freedom Fighter for Animals | February 19, 2008 04:31 PM

Ana,
Of course the animals would rather be liberated than have bigger cages. But arguing about it here and insulting other animal advocates and taking away this tiny victory that gives us hope accomplishes nothing.

Posted by: Spay and neuter immediately, please | February 20, 2008 10:13 AM

Hello Maya!!

Sweetie, semantics is powerful and it does make a difference. There is a vast differnce whern refering to an animal as a beast than calling him a creature. I wrote a very long paper as a graduate student just on this topic about semantics and the other animals. The welfarists DO have a differnt stand on animals and it is stated so by many individuals who are and by orgs that are as well. Animal liberation or animal rights is a totally different animal. Liberationists/rightists work to free animals from human oppression; they do not fight for bigger cages, a taste of grass or for the flesh of slaughtered creatures to be labeled as being "organic". There are welfarists that have no problem with declawing cats!!! (Now I have touched a nerve!!!!) I am an abolitionist which means I fight for animal liberation/rights. I seek to change the hearts of others in regards to their treatment of the other animals and strive to educate them about a vegan diet. I have had much success with students and other people I get to converse with.
So Maya, there is a vast difference. I am not a member of the HSUS but I am of FARM and Vegan Outreach and am a board member of Catholic Concerns for Animals which promotes veganism with the support of Christian mercy and morality.
I am all for non-violence, ahimsa, just like you. But welfarists are not; they're alright with eating flesh, wearing leather and even serve flesh at their events. HSUS has stopped serving flesh only because Wayne Pacelle is vegan. The ASPCA is welfarist and sees nothing with eating flesh. The ASPCA does not even make the effort to campaign strongly against horse carriages---maybe an officer might go out to see if it is too hot for the horses. But that is rare. Welfarists want bigger cages for the poor creatures in the labs; liberationists want no cages or labs. If welfarists were in favor of non-violence then they would not eat animals and the movement to end their slaughter would grow immensely because welfarists are much larger in numbers than animal rightists. They serve to prolong the animals' misery because they give the stamp of approval for their continual slavery and for the proliferation of slaughterhouses---as long as the cows and pigs ate grass what's the problem with a brutal slaughter??? (sarcasm!!).
Peace! :)

Posted by: Ana | February 20, 2008 03:29 PM

This is starting to get ridiculous. Being happy for the animals because a new generation will be treated with a modicum of decency they had previously been denied does not automatically make one a welfarist! That is insulting and quite frankly a little insane. I am vegan and an abolitionist to the core and I say, Go PETA, thank you for keeping this issue in boardrooms and the slaughterhouses and factory farms and in the news. Thank you, PETA, for working twice as hard to change the future for animals everywhere while also busting your ass to change the present for the animals who are getting fattened up for Safeway right this very second. Surely anyone can agree that the situation for farmed animals is so abysmal that they deserve to have people on their side willing to fight for every bit of comfort we can get for them until the whole world is veg. If anyone can do it PETA can, so chill.

Posted by: elphaba | February 20, 2008 07:33 PM

elphaba,

Everyone wants less cruelty, not more. No one is arguing that we should be sad about animals being abused less as they are confined and slaughtered for human gain. We are simply arguing that marginal reforms (if they are actually implemented is another question) are not cause for celebration.

I urge you to reread the posts by Ana and myself. We both make clear that these reforms (again, if they are even implemented) do not give much protection to the interests of the animals.

Welfare reforms mainly serve to satisfy the consumers, who are increasing becoming uneasy with the level of suffering inflicted upon animals used for food. The industry knows that it must convince consumers that they treat animals "humanely" to keep them buying and dissude them from going vegetarian and vegan.

The profit motive would cause industry to reform itself if the animal rights movement would put greater effort into vegan education. The more people that opt-out of purchasing these products of violence, the quicker you will see the dismantlement of factory farming and the ultimate eradication of animals used for food.

Posted by: Brandon Becker | February 22, 2008 03:22 PM

elphaba, If you choose to believe farmed animals live an abysmal life thats up to you, but it's not true. Cattle and sheep spend most of their lives happily grazing, just as they would in nature.
I do prefer free range chickens and pigs over industrialised ones, but to the general public it doesn't seem so important. Cage egg consumption has remained relatively steady despite the increases in free range purchasing.
I'm a little surprised you think the whole world will go veg, animal product consumption is on the increase, particularly in Asia as their incomes rise. They've been on a largely vegetarian diet and want animal protein.
The price of grain will eventually limit the factory farms, leaving animals to be grazed on grass as nature intended. Happily.

Posted by: rojo | February 22, 2008 05:25 PM

Really happy! Just so blissful about this!

Posted by: Andrea Buccarelli | February 23, 2008 01:26 PM

rojo,

"Free-Range and Organic Meat, Eggs, and Dairy Products: Conning Consumers?"
http://www.peta.org/MC/factsheet_display.asp?ID=96

Quoted from the bottom of the factsheet:
-----
From the “free-range” hen who smells fresh air for the first time on her way to the slaughterhouse to the “humanely raised” dairy cow whose male calf is taken from her and sold to veal farmers, all animals who are raised for food suffer. The only truly humane option is to choose vegan alternatives to meat, eggs, and dairy products. Call 1-888-VEG-FOOD or visit GoVeg.com to order a free vegetarian starter kit that contains information on faux meat, alternatives to eggs, and vegan cheese.
-----

Posted by: Brandon Becker | February 23, 2008 04:31 PM

Brandon,
Can you not see that every time PETA is interviewed about a company improving its animal welfare standards they also discuss the conditions the animals are kept in, point out that the best thing anyone can do for farmed animals is to stop eating them and direct them to goveg.com or something? Farmed animals and the idea of vegetarianism would still be rare in the news if not for groups like peta, and even hsus a little. Try looking at the big picture.

Posted by: elphaba | February 23, 2008 09:01 PM

Rojo,
I can think more than seven billion chickens who would disagree with your statement about the way farmed animals live.

Posted by: elphaba | February 24, 2008 08:43 PM

Who are these people who work at these "farms" and do such horrible things to these poor animals? Oh my God, right now I am totally going vegan. Where do I start?

Posted by: kellen | February 24, 2008 09:55 PM

Kellen, there is a ton of info on www.goveg.com for those who are starting to live a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle. Congrats!

(you can also order some awesome vegan products, including food, at www.veganstore.com)

Posted by: Michele | February 25, 2008 01:32 PM

elphaba, did I mention chickens perchance? Your statement was a broad swipe at farming, but now you suddenly wish to be specific on chickens?

Caged chooks would fall under industrialised "farming", beyond factory and nothing like real farming. That kind of production has no support from me. I buy free-range chicken, and have our own backyard chooks for eggs.

While I can't defend battery hen production, and agree from a human perspective it is abysmal, I can't see why the hens would think so. They know no different. Never felt freedom to miss it or had space to feel confined.

Posted by: rojo | February 26, 2008 07:13 AM

Brandon, It unfortunately is a human trait to con, and that can be done by anyone. I'm supposed to believe peta? Sorry, I've read some of their factsheets before and this one is no different, qoutes ambiguous "facts" and ways that regulations can be by-passed, but offers no evidence whatsoever of contravention, no links to prosecutions or anything that I would consider substantial.

quote["U.K. regulations require birds to have access to outdoor areas for at least 8 hours a day, “the maximum number observed outside during daylight hours at any one time was less than 15% of the total flock"]
This is evidence? This is the best peta can do to sink free-range?

Organic is a con, no arguments there. I don't think they even pretend to be have happier chooks.

I do agree with you on veal, that calf could grow up big and strong and feed more mouths, and have a better life to boot. Even though the veal part is an emotional ploy, the separation of mother and offspring is a valid point. The cows do indeed call for some time for the missing calf. How much real anguish there is for the cow I don't know, but it would be a good study point for liberationists. That mother-child-bond thing could open up a large chunk of the population to empathasize with the cow. Thats a freebie.

Posted by: rojo | February 26, 2008 08:02 AM

I am glad that Safeway has began to stop cruel animal torture in farming factories. After watching the clip "Meet Your Meat", it has had a huge impact on me and my whole family about the food we eat everyday. I understand that we need the vitamins, protiens, ect from these animals, but they way they are held, and abused in very sad. No animal deserves to have to go through what these animals have to go though in a day. Me and my family have decided to to restrict our everyday diets to non-meat food groups. We are now vegitarians, and have been going strong for a long time. I hope that in the future, that I can donate money to animal welfare societies. I wish also to educate my friends about this issue as well. And i hope u do the same!

Posted by: Phil | February 26, 2008 05:54 PM

Phil,

I'm glad to see that you became vegetarian after watching "Meet Your Meat." This video pushed me to go vegetarian and continue on the path to veganism.

The agribusiness industry likes to make people think they need to eat animals and their secretions to be healthy. Thankfully, we know this is just lies and that we can be healthy on a 100% plant-based diet.

Check out this excerpt from the American Dietetic Assocation's position paper on "Vegetarian Diets":
http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/advocacy_933_ENU_HTML.htm
"Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence."

Posted by: Brandon Becker | February 28, 2008 04:50 PM

Phil, way to go!!!

You can find tons of info on PETA's website in order to educate your friends about the various issues - I find that I still learn new things all the time. Another good resource is www.pcrm.org.

The "Meet Your Meat" video is pretty compelling - I had already been a vegetarian for about 6 months when I saw it, but that is what convinced me to become a vegan.

Posted by: Michele | February 28, 2008 10:17 PM

At least they are doing something. We do have to keep in mind that they are the 2nd largest grocery chain and are going to keep selling meat and all that, it is a really nice step to stop animal cruelty. We will have to keep fighting and persuade others.

Posted by: Heather | March 6, 2008 12:32 AM

some people will never stop eating animals unfortunatly, so i think its great that peta was able to help safe way. Hopefully other grocery stores will do the same as safe way. This animal tourture has got to stop.

Posted by: tiffany | March 12, 2008 10:15 AM

WOW!!!
I work for safeway and never have i been so proud!
This is definately a step in the right direction! =]

Posted by: Alexandra | March 13, 2008 08:20 PM

ANY STEP regardless of how small is a step in the right direction.

Posted by: Jacqueline | March 18, 2008 06:50 PM

i dont have a safeway by me

Posted by: stephnaie | March 19, 2008 01:21 PM

This is the best thing to get good news instead of all the bad news. This is a small step but a step at that. Im glad that this has happened. Now lets see if this can or cant influence the rest of the industry to operate by humane rules. I hope they aren’t the exception. Let them lead the way. I'll be following

Posted by: Francesca | March 19, 2008 03:24 PM

I feel that this is a HUGE congrats in many ways.. not only is it Safeway where alot of people shop, but to get the CEO's and other heads that high above to listen is pretty remarkable! PETA doesn't have the bad wrap that everybody thinks it has!
=) Thanks to everyone that helped. Good job guys!

Posted by: Manda | March 26, 2008 03:06 AM

while this isn't the ultimate goal, what we must remember is that it is another step in the right direction. no body can get from the bottom to the top of a staircase in one step, they have to take one, maybe two steps at a time. every step takes us a little closer to our ultimate goal.

however, neither should we celebrate the fact that we have made it up one more step. the first reason is that the animals are still suffering and dieing, even if it is less. we feel temporarily distracted from our ultimate goal, taking our eyes from our ultimate destination. we should simply be saying "right, now for the next step." and if we celebrate this small acomplishment then the companies will think that they have done enough and it will only be harder later on to convince them that they need to stop selling meat all together.

Posted by: Horse lover | April 20, 2008 07:54 PM