DISCLAIMER: All views and/or opinions expressed on this website/webpage are the views and/or opinions of the respective author(s), and do not necessarily reflect the views and/or opinions of the publisher, editor(s) and/or webmaster of this website/webpage.
Does the thought of purchasing "Cage Free" or "Free Range" eggs make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? Do you picture a scene from a Norman Rockwell poster, where the hens are happily frolicking in the sun, while Gramma is feeding them?
Well, think again. You are being purposely misled by the marketers and profiteers of animal cruelty.
While "Cage Free" and "Free Range" chickens are in conditions less cruel than the standard Battery Cage egg production chickens, they are still being subjected to extreme cruelty, all just to satisfy your need for the needless taste of an egg.
Quick facts
The term "Cage Free" has absolutely no legal meaning. Which means that anyone can freely use and misuse this term to mislead consumers.
The term "Free Range" does have a legal meaning, but the US Department of Agriculture loosely defines "Free Range" as: "Producers must demonstrate to the Agency that the poultry has been allowed access to the outside." But this does not specify how often: once a year, for five minutes? Once a lifetime? Hence, this feel-good but altogether toothless and impotent definition is completely meaningless.
Male chicks who are born on "Cage Free" or "Free Range" egg farms are crushed to death or stuffed into garbage bags and left to suffocate because they don't produce eggs and are of no use to the industry.
Hens on commercial "Cage Free" and "Free Range" farms are not kept in cages, but they still have their sensitive beaks cut off with a hot blade and are crammed together in filthy sheds where they will live for a couple of years until their egg production wanes and they're sent to slaughter. Cage-free hens never (and free-range hens rarely) go outside, breathe fresh air, feel the sun on their backs, or do anything else that is natural or important to them. They suffer from the same lung lesions and ammonia burns as hens in cages, and they have breast blisters to add to their suffering.
What Should I Do?
Although "Cage Free" and "Free Range" egg production is cruel, it is still less cruel than regular ("battery cage") egg production. You can never give up cruelty completely, but you can try to minimize it in your life and in your choices.
To paraphrase the twelfth chapter of the sublime Bhagavad-gita (verses 8-12), Krishna tells Arjuna, concerning Arjuna's quest to end suffering and attain the perfection of life: "if you can't do this, then do this... and if you are unable to do that, at least try this..." And so on. In the same way, there are many ways your actions can be of benefit, based on your own personal level of commitment:
Give up eating eggs entirely. There is no nutrient in eggs that cannot be found in a vegetarian diet.
If you are unable to give up eggs, then at least choose eggs that are "American Humane Certified", showing that they are from producers that practice relatively humane treatment of their animals.
If you cannot do that, then at least choose "Free Range" eggs, where the chickens are allowed access to the outside at least once in their lifetime.
And if you are unable to do even that, then at least choose "Cage Free" eggs. Although you can never be sure of the conditions of the hens, hopefully it will be better than the lives of battery-caged hens. At the very least, it will show the egg producers that some consumers have a concern about this matter.
What is a "continuum"? It is a scale where there are no discrete steps. For example, pregnancy is not a continuum: you are either pregnant or you are not. There is not such thing as "a little bit pregnant" or "extremely pregnant".
-->
On the lowest end is the wholly selfish person, concerned only with himself. On the highest end is the holy compassionate person, deeply concerned with all living entities.
A little up the scale from the selfish person is the person whose selfishness has extended just a little bit: he is concerned with his "family". Higher still is the person who is involved with his neighborhood. Higher still, his town. Higher still, his concern envelops his state or nation. Or his race. Or his ethnic group.
Humanists believe that the be-all and end-all of compassion is that person who is concerned with all human beings. But is that really the ultimate end of this continuum?
Higher still than the humanists are those concerned only with mammals. Or vertebrates (animals with backbones). Don't laugh, it is true: many (if not most) anti-cruelty laws are codified so that these laws apply to vertebrates only.
But the true summum bonum of compassion lies in those rarest of individuals who have compassion and concern for all living entities. The Buddhist call these beings Bodhisattvas. The Jains call him an Arhat. The Vaishnavas call him or her a Maha-bhagavata, or in the rarest of cases, a Shaktyavesa-avatara: a living entity who is empowered by the Personality of Godhead.
I am sure you have heard something along these lines: "We have to help so-and-so; he's family!" Which implies that you do not need to help other people, because you believe that they are not family.
If you go back far enough, you will find that we are all related... we are all family.
So, where do you draw the line as to who is family and who is not? There is a line somewhere. Third cousins? Second cousins, four times removed? A different ethnic group? A different race? What?
Similarly, one should understand that all living entities are related. The difference is only a matter of degree.
A person believing in evolution cannot deny this, obviously. Since we have all been evolved from an original organism, we are all related: even the plants as well as amoeba, what to speak of animals.
Even a person believing in creationism cannot deny this either: the same Creator created us all. We are all still related by a common Creator. To deny this is to accept the reality of more than one Creator.
As Gandhari says in the Mahabharata, "When one considers one's own sons more important than the sons, of others, war is near."
Hunters are morally superior to the flesh-eaters who do not hunt. After all, the flesh-eating non-hunters rely on their meat being neatly packaged, with no hint of the cruelty involved. Meat-eaters who criticize hunters are hypocrites.
With the exception of "cage hunted animals", the animals hunted know the joy of living truly free (at least, for a while). This is not the case with slaughterhouse animals. Although certainly callous, the hunter witnesses the pain of the animals he kills, not so with the supermarket consumer, who carefully insulates himself from the agony of the animal's struggle to simply live and enjoy life.
All of this being said, even the so-called "noble" hunter falls far short of those who embrace ahimsa (compassion), and who eschew unnecessary cruelty and pain. My anti-hunting argument begins:
Do you ever wonder about the warped mentality of those who hunt? About how they rationalize ("rationalize" = "rational lies") their needless and barbaric actions?
This argument does not apply, of course, to those whose very existence depends on killing animals for survival: this argument applies only to those who pretend that hunting is just a harmless "pastime", such as Tiddlywinks. Or to those who claim they hunt to "put food on the table", just because their income-producing skills are "lacking".
There surely must be a machismo element. According to practically all psychological schools of thought, guns are a replacement of the penis (i.e., the smaller the penis, the larger the gun). And isn't it strange that most hunters sport moustaches, the facial hair of choice for those who are insecure and inadequate about their masculinity? If you don't believe me, check out the photos from any hunting magazine, such as Outdoor Life or Field and Stream: you will certainly see more moustaches per capita than the general population.
Most (if not all) of hunting enthusiasts are men. From the field hunters to the people who run hunting stores are primarily men. This is because hunting is a testosterone-filled sport. Hunting involves killing, the feel of holding something deadly (their gun), the joy of holding something dead (their harmless victims), the predatory tactics, and most of all, the thrill of the chase.
So what kind of so-called "man" is proud that he killed a small, harmless, unarmed squirrel, rabbit or deer, using "superior firepower"? Where is the challenge in that? Where is the honor?
Maybe, for these so-called "brave men", unable and incapable of sexually satisfying their mate, hunting is the only way to impress their (in their minds, at least) "simple-minded womanfolk" as to how "tough" they are, by their callousness of death. Which begs the question: what is the mentality of women who are shallow and hollow enough to be impressed by these "fearless hunters"?
After all, it takes a lot of balls to go, armed with state-of-the-art firepower, face-to-face against an unarmed rabbit.
Buddhism began as a reaction to a sectarian corruption within Hinduism (which started to use animal sacrifice as an excuse to eat meat). The original Buddhist canon is utterly overflowing with injunctions promoting ahimsa (non-violence), especially towards animals.
Yet now, ironically, we see that, with a few exceptions*, ahimsa and vegetarianism is barely a footnote in contemporary Buddhism. Indeed, many observers have commented that current Buddhism has degenerated into a "do your own thing" form of stylized atheism, without morals or ethics.
The Dalai Lama is a Flesh-Eating Veal Lover
According to his own official website, "the Dalai Lama is not necessarily a vegetarian, at least not outside Dharamsala." The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (May 15, 2007 edition) (and many others) reports that the Dalai Lama loves to eat veal: this so-called incarnation of the Bodhisattva of Compassion, valuing his taste buds over the suffering of others, unable to control himself, just loves to devour veal, the most cruel of foods.
He claims in his own autobiography (Freedom in Exile: The Autobiography of The Dalai Lama) that he experimented with vegetarianism, and found it highly spiritually satisfying; but then claims that he needed to eat meat to follow his so-called "doctor's" orders (for Hepatitis B). Yet authentic doctors recommend that someone with liver disease should minimize meat-eating. And there is no nutrient in meat that cannot be found in a vegetarian diet! There is no disease in which the treatment requires the eating of meat! And even if there were such a disease, at least show a little moral fortitude and eschew eating the most cruel of meats, veal!
Buddhism (and Hinduism) teaches us that "giving up something you love" is beneficial for spiritual advancement. It does not teach us to "give up something you hate"... everyone does that.
Even better, live up to your teachings that selfish, temporary sensual gratification is a major cause of suffering in this world, and give up meat-eating altogether.
Becoming a vegetarian is not a great sacrifice. Millions around the world have done so, even for selfish reasons such as for their own health. Why not you?
We understand that vegetarianism may be difficult to practise when living in Tibet, high in the barren wastelands of the Himalayas. But elsewhere, where grains, vegetables and fruits are in abundance, there is no excuse to choose cruelty over compassion.
Although all other religions of the world at least tolerate vegetarianism, not so with Christianity:
In 1 Timothy 4:1-5, it is written: "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."
This passage clearly equates vegetarianism with the "doctrine of devils". It was authored by the so-called "Saint" Paul. Although many Christians erroneously believe that Paul was one of Jesus' twelve disciples, present at the Last Supper, he was not. In fact, he never met Christ. Many decry that the religion of Christ has been usurped by the religion of Paul; in other words, Paulinism has supplanted Christianity.
Despite so many instructions in the matter, despite so many injunctions promoting ahimsa (harmless to other living creatures) and forbidding animal sacrifice in this current degraded Age of Kali, a few misguided Hindus resort to the abominable practice of animal sacrifice.
A recent report:
"JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) — Indonesia has rejected a push by the resort island of Bali for rare turtles to be legally slain in Hindu ceremonies, siding with conservationists of the protected reptiles against religious advocates, an official said Friday.
Bali Governor I Made Mangku Pastika enraged environmentalists by advocating a quota of 1,000 green turtles be killed each year, strictly for ceremonial purposes." —November 27, 2009 Associated Press report
I salute the Muslim government of Indonesia for stepping in and thwarting this travesty.
If Hindus want to practice animal sacrifice, I suggest they do true animal sacrifice: bhuta yajña (which means, literally, "animal sacrifice"!). And how does one perform bhuta yajña? Not by killing an animal, but by sacrificing your time and/or money to help alleviate the suffering of the animals in their stuggle for existence: put up a bird feeder or a squirrel house. Donate to your local Humane Society. Make your property a wildlife sanctuary. You get the idea, don't you?
I also must point out that the level of compassion within Hinduism varies wildly. While the Shaktas (fanatics of Kali) are known to sacrifice animals, and while many of the worshippers of Shiva (Shaivites) will eat animals, the Vaishnavas (the devotees of Vishnu or Krishna) are strict vegetarians, and find that the ritualistic killing, slaughter or consumption of animals (meat-eating) absolutely repulsive and repugnant.
Unlike Christianity, there is no prohibition of vegetarianism within Islam.
That being said, barbaric and brutal animal slaughter is rife within most of the Muslim world, and we strongly encourage sincere Muslims to take the Prophet Mohommed's (PBUH) well-documented concerns for animals to heart, and cease all animal slaughter, which is completely unnecessary.
Even worse than voodoo, believe it or not, is the absolutely cruel, hideous and utterly barbaric Jewish "tradition" of Kapporot, which entails swinging a live chicken or rooster around oneself (no doubt painfully breaking wings or legs in the process), in order to relieve the swinger of his own sins, before being ritually killed, saying, "This is in exchange for me, this is instead of me, this is my atonement. This rooster (or hen) shall go to its death, and I shall enter in and go to a good, long life and to peace."
We are utterly confused as to how causing the excruciating pain, suffering and death to another sentient living entity relieves the sins of the one causing the suffering or death of the other. How does one atone if one does not suffer? Don't put the suffering on an innocent if it didn't sin!
There is some major irony here, as well: the tormentor wants to be released of his or her own sins, yet commits a horrific sinful act in the process. Go figure.
Then there is also the utterly selfish action of causing the suffering of another ("this rooster or hen shall go to its death") for the sake of the happiness of the tormentor ("and I shall enter in and go to a good, long life and to peace").
Please note that kapporot is not an obscure ceremony, practiced only by a few hardcore wackos or the lunatic fringe. There are over 14 kapporot centers in the New York City area alone, according to an online article from JTA, "The Global News Service of the Jewish People".
Thousands of chicken carcasses discarded in a dumpster from the Kapporot ceremony
Image and following excerpt is from http://jta.org/ via Fair Use Doctrine
And in Israel as well: A joyous Jew, with his joyous children, in Israel, ready to perform kapparos with a (probably not-so-joyous) live chicken
Here is an idea: instead of causing an innocent animal to suffer for your sins, why don't you just give up your sinning? If you can't help yourself from committing sinful acts, then take responsibility for your own actions.
If you want to sacrifice, make it your own sacrifice, not someone else's sacrifice.
This barbaric and savage "tradition" is completely in violation of the noble Jewish commandment of zaar baalei chayim — preventing cruelty to animals.
For related information, please check out Vegetarianism and Judaism, and relevant links on our Organizations page.—Webmaster's note
THE BOTTOM LINE
If you really believe in your heart that God is a God of justice, how will He judge you? That you took your selfish interests over the suffering of one (and probably much more that one) of His creatures? Despite all of the non-violent alternatives that He has given you?
—Jim Blanston
Would you like your essay to appear here? Please email your essay to ethicalvegetarian@satoripublishing.com for consideration.
