The Red and Black

Issue date: 7/3/08 Section: Opinions

VALERIE TAPLEY

In response to Tulsi Patel's column "Vegetarian pleas for animals," (June 19), first, Ms. Patel, I do applaud you for having an opinion on this issue, as so many people are apathetic about many parts of our culture today.

However, I hope you see that people like myself, who are hoping to enter the meat industry as an employee in the near future, are not writing articles in an attempt to convert vegetarians to meat-eaters.

I'm glad you have a lifestyle you're proud of, but that doesn't mean I want to necessarily be converted to your ways of thinking. I do grant that you are able to get an adequate intake from a vegetarian diet, so long as you watch carefully your intake of certain vitamins and proteins.

However, it is insulting to think that those of us in the industry are abusive to the animals.

The differences between harvesting animals for human consumption and actual animal cruelty are so vast it is difficult to determine where to begin.

First, animal cruelty is an act of pure, unadulterated violence. The intents of an animal abuser are to physically harm an animal, either into submissiveness to them, or in order to encourage an aggressive behavior towards other people or animals. Or, maybe some rare sick individuals just like to see an animal in pain.

But harvesting an animal for food causes no harm. The meat industry has made great strides to allow this process to be as humane as possible.

Now, granted, there are still some people out there who do things the wrong way. That is the case in every industry.

In fact, you could look at some members of PETA who have liberated stalled animals, such as horses, allowing them to run freely - well, freely into traffic where they could have been killed.

I doubt that is what you or any of your readers have in mind when they consider the notion of "ethical treatment of animals."

The truth is, I have heard of companies firing employees who do not treat animals humanely - even for such small acts as urging cattle along with their hardhats.

The fact is, mistreatment of the animals is strongly discouraged and only occurs in limited instances. I am sure some animal rights activists would be fast to point me in the direction of Web sites where you can prove mishandling.

But until you yourself have witnessed an abusive harvesting, I would hardly be apt to take your "evidence" seriously. I have seen harvesting of plants and vegetables, and I could also argue that there are some better ways to do that.

Could you say the same for yourself about the animals? I, personally, have experienced harvesting, on both large and small scales, and I have never seen an animal beat, abused, mishandled, or mistreated, either on a farm, in the pens, or in a harvesting facility.

Let us consider some scientific facts. An animal that has had either long-term or short-term stress will reflect that stress in their meat, as pale, soft, and exudative or dark, firm and dry. This gives companies a strong incentive to treat their animals well.

Therefore, unless all the meat on the local grocery store shelves reflect either long or short-term stress on the animal, we must assume that they have not been put through substantial stress.

Ms. Patel claims that not eating meat is a more moral choice than eating it. That, again, is quite an insult.

This is one point where I am adamant that you will never be able to sway me on. Once more, you call something immoral that you may have hardly any actual first-hand knowledge about.

I am not insulting your way of living and I think it is a shame that instead of informing people on a healthy vegetarian diet, you instead attempt to insult and degrade those of us who choose to eat meat, and more specifically, those of use who work in the meat industry.

- Valerie Tapley is a senior from Milledgeville, majoring in animal science.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools