Playing the Culture Card, Live Markets and the Politics of Food

As I've alluded to several times on this blog, food is a very complex issue. I'm fascinated by food, not least because I can eat so little of it (no gluten, no casein, no eggs, no soy- it's a tough diet) but because there's this whole issue of ethical and humane, sustainable and environmentally sound farming which plays into my mind about what I choose to eat. In the coming weeks I hope to have the delightful Seanan Forbes guest blog for us about ways to source responsibly produced food. (Prelude anyone? Check out the Chef's Collaborative link over ➞ in the Passel of Riches. It's a Seanan recommendation.)

Today however, we have Dr. Thelma Lee Gross, a Veterinary Pathologist practicing in California. Thelma is internationally known (and there will be hell to pay for saying it, but even I'm astonished by the 9,120 Google hits to her specific name in quotes) and the author of several highly regarded small animal pathology texts. I've known Thelma for exactly one half my life at this point and if there is one thing I can tell you it is that Thelma Lee Gross is not shy when it comes to offering her opinions. Live markets have been a passionate cause for Thelma and I was surprised in fact, in sourcing some biographical material, to find a one page commentary titled: Scientific and moral considerations for live market practices in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association from way back in 2003.

How did your dinner die? Is it ever okay to be cruel to animals in order to eat them? Where do we draw that line? Peter Wedderburn of the Telegraph blogged on the issue of Kosher slaughter and its effective recent ban in New Zealand. New Zealand joined Iceland, Norway and Sweden in banning ritual slaughter by requiring that animals be stunned prior to slaughter. Is Kosher and Halal slaughter cruel? The debate is a contentious one loaded with religious and political overtones. To what extent are long-held cultural practices acceptable in modern times, especially when revisited with the eyes of modern veterinary medicine?


Those of us who have been lucky enough to travel outside the US are well aware of different cultural practices and tolerances for what some of us view as food and others of us view as sentient animals and others of us see as both, in one form. We've probably all been to those seafood restaurants where you see live lobsters in a tank. I still remember shrinking in horror at the idea of their fate when I was a child. (I haven't changed my mind, actually.) My love of animals is a large part of why I was a vegetarian for many, many years. Seanan, however, will tell you about the serious issues of sustainable farming of vegetable crops. Because that's not exactly a solution either.


It is my hope that we can discuss food in the coming months from two perspectives- Seanan's and Thelma's. It would be fantastically informative and I hope it works out. These ladies are very busy and I'm thrilled to snag them as I can.

In any case, with no further ado, Dr. Gross:

---

Frogs and Turtles for Sale

(image credit: Laurel Smith)

Tribalism: Playing the “Culture Card”

On March 4^th, 2010 the five-member California Fish and Game Commission voted unanimously to ban the importation of non-native turtles and frogs for food.  The humane consideration of live market practices, as outlined in my recent article in the Sacramento News and Review, was not the issue; in fact, the commission never cared to consider the humane argument.  Instead the ban was enacted because the imported animals are competing with the native species of California by spread of disease, by competition for food and habitat, and by predation.  This argument is certainly mainstream and popular, and it is easy to see why this line was taken by the commission over the politically more fragile argument of animal cruelty.

During a regularly scheduled meeting of the Commission on May 5^th about a dozen market supporters attended the hearing to protest the ban.  Six state legislators also submitted a letter of dissention to the Commission.  The letter was signed by State Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) and Assembly-members Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco), Ted Lieu (D-Torrance), Paul Fong (D-Sunnyvale), Mike Eng (D-Monterey Park), and Warren Furutani (D-Long Beach).  On May 6, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that, "After hearing from the merchants Wednesday morning, Commission President Jim Kellogg promised that the body would reconsider the new policy at a future meeting, citing both the legislators' request and the public testimony."  Thankfully, on Thursday, May 20, in a packed hearing room in Sacramento, the State Fish & Game Commission voted 3:2 not to overturn the ban.  Three of the original state legislators were present and testified against the ban: Senator Yee, and Assembly-members Ma and Lieu.  

Asian American market supporters from San Francisco and Oakland also attended the May 20^th hearing, mostly elderly people with no knowledge or sensitivity regarding environmental protection, let alone humane issues.  Their main arguments were "5,000 years of Chinese tradition” and that turtle and frog meat was “good for one's health”.  In other words: “It’s our culture so that means you shall not interfere.  If you do, you are an insensitive racist”. 

This cultural argument is not unprecedented.  See past and current arguments for cock fighting (see also here), Indian tribal hunting of Florida Panthers, and charreadas (Mexican rodeos which include some inhumane practices, such as steer tailing and horse felling; see also here). (Marzie also notes the ongoing battle in Catalonia, Spain over bullfighting.)

I accept that some of the motivation of these Asian legislators was political, for after all, politicians are elected by their constituents and they are paid to pander to them.  But the nearly exclusively Chinese retaliation in this case is suspect.  (The involvement of Assembly-member Furutani remains elusive. Surely it wasn’t: “All Asians should stick together” was it?)  In my view, the blind support of “tribe” occurred without any consideration of the inherent integrity of protecting California habitat and native species.  Neither did it begin to consider the inhumanity of live market practices.  That is immoral, in my view, because it places racial or ethnic identity above other considerations, like the extinction of California’s native species, as well as the barbarism of mutilating animals while they are still alive.  The culture card was used to trump reason, morality, sensitivity, and humanity.  I for one cannot wait until the day when we are all ethnically indeterminate.  Maybe then this madness will stop.

---

I hope to have Thelma Lee give us a piece on California's Proposition 2, about which she is well versed and has published thoughts. In the meantime, readers of the blog who wish to know more about industrialized farming from a factual standpoint would do well to visit: http://www.ncifap.org/ and read the Pew Commission Report on Industrialized Farming in America (titled Putting Meat on the Table). Even the Executive Summary will give you pause for thought.


© Bright Nepenthe, 2010