Animal Emotions

This is a great post, and I hope more people understand that Temple Grandin is paid by the meat industry. She cannot ask the question of whether it's right to lead animals to slaughter. She can only ask about the "best" way to do that--"best" for the meat industry, not for the animals, of course. Thanks, Marc, for your clear thinking on this important topic.

The author presumes that the autistic mind defines ideas like "humane" and "life" and "death" the same way that the non-autistic mind defines such ideas. Furthermore, can you imagine a world without Dr. Grandin's work? The cattle industry did not commission humane designs for dips or slaughter houses, Grandin did that work herself and pushed her work through despite the ridicule and objections of many in the cattle industry. To villainize Dr. Grandin is to show your commitment to cynicism versus a commitment to a genuine analysis of the philosophical implications of what Dr. Grandin's work presents.

In this great country we have and hear of everyone's opinion....so here's mine. If we are to follow the HBO movie shown tonight on Dr. Grandin and assume that the events were represented in order and correctly; then she had ideas and a focus on animals long before she was "paid by the meat industry." Honestly, the meat industry doesn't have to utilize her ideas and can do things the old ways. She is taking an industry and trying to make it better. She has the advantage to see the whole picture and recognize the "meat industry" is here so why not make changes.

M00ooo.

"better because they are treated in a more humane way because of her research. I think, to be fair, that perhaps some animals - likely a tiny fraction of the animals who go to slaughter - may have slightly better lives than they otherwise would"

That is the point, period.
If we think any one or any thing is going to end slaughterhouses, meat eating, laboratory animal testing, animal or child abuse OVERNIGHT, by any majority or even in our lifetime... Not going to happen.

By all means seek that path as a destination. But if you can't work along the path getting there with those who ARE, don't critisize others doing so.

Extremism is part of the problem - not the solution.

I fight for urban wildlife - also sentient creatures we allow to become maligned and misunderstood. I want understanding, appreciation, education. The minute I would choose to demand no hunting I would lose all credibility with those I need help from. Is that right? No. It is however, reality.

"Humane" means to be concerned with the alleviation of suffering. These beings are not ill, maimed or otherwise "unhealthy". They are not in an aging pain. They are delivered "fit for living", so there is no "suffering to alleviate".

Furthermore... since the killing of these animals is totally unnecessary - Absolutely nothing is "humane" in preventable death.

I agree wholeheartedly with my fellow ethologist Marc Bekoff. There is no such thing as humane slaughter. Although it is better to try to improve the conditions animals face in slaughterhouses than to do nothing, we can do so much better than that by making factory farms and slaughterhouses redundant. That will only come about when people make the decision that is the best for the animals, for the environment, and for their personal health: it is the decision to stop eating animals.

Thanks for the comments on my short essay. As I mentioned, a very few animals might be better off but being better off still doesn't mean having any thing that resembles a 'good life.' Their post-Grandin lives remain regrettably and shamefully horrible. I also just learned that Grandin refers to her humane chutes as the 'stairway to heaven.' I'll let you all figure that one out .... Furthermore, Grandin and other's arguments that these animals would not have lived had they not been reared for food is one that I find rather 'off' in that would any of us choose a life that was going to end in torture and the total loss of dignity. I know philosophers and others have pondered this question endlessly but in my humble opinion it simply allows for humans to decide who should live and how and when they should die and then justify the horrific practices of factory farms. I'm glad that there is a good discussion going and hope that we can all work to close down factory farms.

As someone with a degree in Animal Science, I applaud Temple Grandin for tackling an issue most wouldn't have the stomach to face. Getting these huge livestock operators to adopt her designs and to even think about the animals they are involved with is a giant first step. But, it is only the beginning. It is my hope that meat will, once again, become a luxury instead of the cheap protein it is now viewed as. If consumers pay $25/lb then small ranchers can make a living and practice sustainable and humane husbandry practices. And, major public health issues are addressed as well: antibiotic use will decrease dramatically because animals are no longer kept in numbers detrimental to their health, and perhaps this obesity epidemic will be contained if people resort to less expensive sources of protein that are plant based.

Human beings are omnivores, that is simply a fact, but the eating of meat should be a rare and special event. It is my hope that I will live long enough to return to a way of eating my grandmother would recognize.

@Stephanie Hextrum "Human beings are omnivores" - But we are so by choice. There's absolutely no mandate to be so:
"It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes."
http://www.eatright.org/About/Content.aspx?id=8357

All Grandin has done is make people think that the problem of (humane) animal slaughter has been dealt with and solved. And nothing could be further than the truth.

In reality close to 20% of 4-legged animals are "improperly" stunned. The disassembly line does not stop for them. They are dismembered while alive. Even if this happens to only one of 10 billion --- It's still too many!
http://www.hfa.org/hot_topic/wash_post.html

Does anyone really think these places are "regulated" or inspected on a cow by cow or pig by pig basis? It is all wishful, naive thinking...

The best solution is to not eat the animals at all.

I have never understood how animal protectionists could have anything but disdain for Temple Grandin, who has been a pawn of the food animal industry for more than a quarter century. She specializes in designing and implementing "humane" methods to control, move, and slaughter food animals. She is the epitome of collaboration with the enemy, showing them how to operate at greater efficiency and profit while pretending this is good for animals and ethical for consumers.

And she is embraced by many in the animal WELFARE community, though certainly not by anyone in his/her right mind in the animal RIGHTS community. But get this:

She received the 1999 Founders Award from the ASPCA. You read that correctly. Here's what ASPCA thinks is good about her: "She argues that, if animals are property, they need far more legal protection than non-living property like a hammer or a screwdriver." Seriously, ASPCA?

In 2001, she received the Joseph Wood Krutch Medal from HSUS, which is awarded for "significant contribution toward the improvement of life and the environment." Amazing, HSUS.

She received the 2004 PETA Proggy Visionary award. I'm not kidding. Here's what PETA said: "Renowned animal scientist Dr. Temple Grandin doesn't seem like the sort of person who would receive PETA's Proggy Award. An associate professor of animal science at Colorado State University, Dr. Grandin consults with the livestock industry and the American Meat Institute on the design of slaughterhouses! However, Dr. Grandin's improvements to animal-handling systems found in slaughterhouses have decreased the amount of fear and pain that animals experience in their final hours, and she is widely considered the world's leading expert on the welfare of cattle and pigs."

Can you freakin' believe that from PETA? Praise and an award for the development of killing methods that increase profits and make the killing of animals more efficient and acceptable? Oh, that's right. PETA has waxed ecstatic about controlled atmosphere killing too. Shameful.

Who is the real Temple Grandin? Here are some other awards she has received. No lie; they are on her resumé:

1984, Meritorious Service, Livestock Conservation Institute (now National Institute of Animal Agriculture).
1990, National Provisioner, Processing Stars of 1990.
1994, Industry Innovator's Award, Meat Marketing and Technology Magazine.
1995, Industry Advancement Award, American Meat Institute.
1995, Animal Management Award, American Society of Animal Science.
1998, Forbes Award, National Meat Association.
1999, Woman of the Year in Service to Agriculture, Progressive Farmer Magazine.
1999, Named as one of the 26 Industry Influentials by Meat Marketing and Technology Magazaine.
2001, Knowlton Award for Innovation, Meat Marketing and Technology.
2002, Richard L. Knowlton Innovation Award from Meat Marketing and Technology Magazine.
2004, President's Award, National Institute of Animal Agriculture.
2004, The Beef Top 40: The 40 most influential people in the beef industry. Awarded on the 40th anniversary of Beef Magazine.
2009, Sharp Cleaver Award - Colorado and Wyoming Association of Meat Processors.
2009, Meat Industry Hall of Fame, Chicago, Illinois.
2009, Headliner Award, Livestock Publications Council, Fort Worth, Texas.

And that's who Temple Grandin is: a woman in service to agriculture. Pure and simple. And the saint of the dead-end farm animal welfare movement.

The gutless promotion of this Benedict Arnold of the animal rights movement is more evidence that the major animal protection organizations are willing to sell out farm animals for token measures and pieces of silver. Grandin seems to get a pass because she plays on her autism, and because so many admire that an autistic person can achieve such "success." Success for her, more deaths for animals, more profits for animal killers.

History will show her to be the traitor she is, and in the enlightened future she will be revered only by her agriculture industry "keepers."

True animal protectionists see her already for what she is. You can't be for animals and also be for Temple Grandin.

Marc, my wife and daughter are vegans and they could not agree with you more, in particular my activist daughter.

I know Temple and consider her to be a friend. Her insights are amazing. But your comments suggest that you have little understanding of the autistic mind and if you are going to write under the heading of Psychology Today I would suggest that should be your starting point.

I happen to have Asperger's. My son has Asperger's and likely so did my dad who was an aviation engineer.

Temple saw a problem and decided she could fix it. It is more about being task driven then having empathy for animals like you have. She has this, but in a differnt way. The meat business is a BUSINESS. So would you suggest that animals should go back to the way they were before she made monumental changes? She was able to justify the cost model of her designs and the return on investment. If she had not done this the industry would have stopped her in her tracks. So cut her some slack.

I never heard of you before today but Temple is world famous. Hope you do not feel that you criticism will move you up the ladder to the level of admiration millions have for her.

And I like a good BBQ steak...my choice.

In your reply to the posts, you make a casual and apparently unthinking dismissal of Grandin's and other's statement that the animals would not be alive in the first place had we not reared them. You ask the question "would any of us choose a life that was going to end in torture and the total loss of dignity". YES. First of all, the other option in that question(which you leave out) is not having been born at all. I would choose living. It's a shame that you assume that everyone else would choose not to live. Secondly, if by 'end in torture' you mean being instantly rendered insensible by a rod through the brain and if by 'total loss of dignity' you mean being provided food, shelter, and protection from predators for my whole life, all the while being kept as physically healthy as possible(so I give good meat), then the answer becomes even more emphatic. YES! YES! YES!
Grandin has demonstrated that she is as concerned about cattle welfare as you are, and has put that concern into action. Trafficking in rigid ideology and vague abstractions such as 'cattle dignity' have not allowed you to make the kind of real-world impact that Temple Grandin has, but that is not a good reason for you to dismiss her work completely.

Until Grandin uses her extraordinarily loud megaphone to augment the work she’s doing by joining numerous other authors in condemning the horrors of factory farming and admonishing meat eaters to change their diets by dramatically restricting or eliminating meat for all the reasons that makes sense – animal protection, environmental protection and health — I see her work as colluding with the meat industry and against the interests of animals. Why should she continue to get accolades as an animal welfarist if she’s not at least talking about the horrors of factory farming and the miserable lives those sentient, cognitive and emotional animals endure?

There would be no need for factory farms for Grandin’s work if we all practiced compassion three times each day by minding what’s on our plate and embracing a plant based diet. The animals, our health, and the environment would all benefit.

Temple has done more for these animals than any vegetarian out there. The vegetarian chooses not to eat meat because it makes him feel better about himself. It's actually a very selfish, unrealistic way of thinking. Just because you decide not to eat meat doesn't stop others from eating it. The reality is that you haven't saved anyone or anything.

The difference between the average vegetarian and Temple is that she actually changed the way these animals were being treated for the better. She created a more humane system that greatly reduced stress for them. For many years, she had studied their behavior and understood their fears. She put in a lot of work to make sure that the animals were at peace before they died.

The movie touched upon the subject of death - her horse, the cows, and her science teacher. Temple repeats the same phrase throughout the movie - "Where do they go?", as in "Where do their souls go?". At her teacher's funeral, she knew that the man in the coffin was not her teacher. That was just a shell for his soul. Where did he go? Somewhere. Energy cannot be destroyed.

Temple knew that she could help these "souls" and reduce their suffering before they died. The reality is that the cattle industry will flourish, no matter how many vegetarians there are out there. At least Temple did something for these animals. Armchair critics, you should look at yourself before you criticize others. Your ego has gotten in the way of reality.

For those of you who do have HBO, I suggest watching her movie. It gives her perspective on the subject and you'll see where she's coming from. Before you judge her (as so many on here have), watch her story. I was in tears throughout the film, as she has overcome so many obstacles in life. And she is an animal lover and an advocate for handling their deaths humanely. Think about what the cattle industry would be like without her. It may not be something you agree with, but she made long strides toward progress. Armchair critics who think that not eating meat is good enough, you should walk into a slaughterhouse and see that despite your choice, animals are still being killed. At least she had made an effort to ease their suffering. Life isn't black and white. She understood the spectrum in between and stepped into it.

Marc, I agree with you that we should stop eating meat for the sake of compassion and the world ecology and economy. I understand how Dr. Grandin can be such a controversy in such a horrible system as factory farms and slaughterhouses. I see her work as an unlaudable stop-gap measure until we stop our unconscionable animal slaughter.

I am not a big fan of government, but if a party could force a huge luxury tax on animal products and strictly enforce humane treatment regulations while striving to eliminate meat-eating, I would support such a movement.

1st step, force the media to run PETA (or EETA) commercials showing what is happening. Paul McCartney is right 'If slaughterhouses had glass walls, we'd all be vegan.' If it is not immoral, let everyone see it and decide for themselves.

Anyone who has seen her presentations or read her statements can see for themselves that Grandin is more concerned about doing her job well--and that job is to make the meat industry more profitable. Humaneness is only a marginally positive side effect. If it were more profitable to make conditions less humane, the meat industry would support that also (and most of the time that is the case). Grandin focuses on calming the animals before slaughter because it speeds up the production line, increases worker safety, and reduces carcass damage. Grandin takes a strong stance against vegetarianism--its ridiculous to think that she is seriously interested in helping animals if her goal is to push more through the chute.
It is unfortunate, however, that Bekoff focuses solely on factory farming and meat...so called "humane" meat is equally cruel and other animal products such as dairy, eggs, down, etc. are all just as terrible for the animals. If we want to take the interests of animals seriously we must go vegan.

I watched the movie and read this article and have these observations.

First of all, the author of this article seems to believe that it's an all or nothing world. It's not.

I salute Dr. Grandin for her efforts to improve the quality of life, brief though it may be, of the livestock destined to the tables of the majority of Americans.

And I question the true intelligence of anyone who thinks that incremental improvements are not appreciable and the only way is to eliminate the consumption of meat. That's never going to happen, period.

So, rather than try to take away from someone who tries to make life better for an animal, even if only for a few minutes, why not acknowledge that she's trying to do what she can.

Those who think that the only solution is to eliminate the consumption of meat are "idealist idiots", as that will never happen.

It's because of these idealist idiots, that true reform never gets anywhere. Because rather than working for incremental improvements in the systems, they take an "all or nothing" approach and are seen as wild eyed zealots.

As long as these idealist idiots take that "all or nothing" approach, they'll continue to get the "nothing" part of it.

So, once again, good for Dr. Grandin for having the intelligence to recognize that, while she can't eliminate a system, she can work to improve it.

She's certainly not a part of the problem, as she doesn't eat meat herself, but rather definitely part of the solution to try and make the system as humane as possible.

I personally believe that her methods should be mandated by our government as part of the USDA inspection and grading process.

Start marking meat that comes from sources that use more "humane methods", like those of Dr. Grandin's, vs those that do not, and the marketplace will force the adoption of the more "humane methods" as a means to stay competitive.

That seems a much more reasonable and realistic approach than the "just don't eat meat" approach.

From Wikipedia "The lack of demonstrated empathy is possibly the most dysfunctional aspect of Asperger syndrome"

If so, how would this make someone with AS better able to feel animal emotion? It is a bit counter-intuitive.

To those bloggers who dismiss those of us calling on Grandin to augment her work with calls to reduce meat consumption as "idealistic idiots" or worse, I point you to recently released research by the Pew Commission which highlights the "unacceptable" risks to public health and the environment that these systems pose:

http://www.ncifap.org/

http://www.ncifap.org/bin/s/a/PCIFAPSmry.pdf

http://www.ncifap.org/bin/c/w/Frequently_Asked_Questions_updated_2.pdf

Grandin does, in fact eat meat, contrary to a claim above, and suggests that the vegan diet is "unnatural." She also claims to have found it "exciting" the first time she participated in the slaughter of a cow.

I am not suggesting that Grandin hasn't eased the suffering of some doomed beef cattle -- empirical evidence suggests that she has. What I'm suggesting is that the data is in on the extraordinary and devastating implications that excessive meat consumption and industrial farming have on human health, the environment and animal suffering. And that if Grandin wants to continue to be exalted as an animal welfarist, she should be using her extraordinarily loud megaphone to help educate about those facts, and not simply rest on the work she has already done to make the transport and slaughter of some beef cattle less horrific.

I see a good deal of extremism here, and this is why your cause is pretty much dead in the water. No one is going to listen to anyone who insists that "Human beings are omnivores - But are so by choice. There's absolutely no mandate to be so".
May I reverse that thought and say " Some human beings are vegans - But are so by choice. There's absolutely no mandate to be so"
I would also suggest that people do an in depth study of all of Temple Grandin's papers. She has done much more animal work than just with cattle.
For all you PETA members, I remember when your organization put down hundreds of cats and dogs rather than to allow them to be slaves to humans. And your complaining about cattle? Naw....
Time for a burger.

Thank you for this thoughtful and important article. Please keep them coming. I can't help but notice that the meat defenders on this post are full of anger and sarcasm. Could it be that there is some underlying instinct that sending animals to die for our meals needs to be questioned? A person at peace with their life choices rarely defends them with such venom. Science has shown repeatedly (and the results been repressed repeatedly by the politically powerful dairy council and the captains of the beef industry) that meat consumption today (modern farming practices, hormones, antibiotics, corn-based, no outdoor activity or sun exposure) produces a myriad of health problems in humans - diabetes, obesity, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, strokes, heart attacks, endocrine problems, the list goes on. isn't it worth examining without the need for knee-jerk defensive posturing and insults? What's behind that?