The publishing world is a ruthless one. No one is denying that. I agree that it’s great that VegNews is able to reach an audience that may otherwise not have access to vegan materials… As one of the commentors on Quarry Girl’s recent exposé remarked, VegNews is available to people shopping at Safeway in Nebraska – T.O.F.U. Magazine and the vegan blogosphere isn’t so immediately visible. It’s great that we have a vegan-run publication that is so prevalent among mainstream media. I agree with VegNews about these things.

But you know what? That doesn’t negate what they did wrong, and their response did nothing to assuage my newfound unease with their publication. Nowhere in that letter did they even acknowledge their readers’ concern with anything but accusations. You know what they did instead of saying “we fucked up”? They accused us of being the assholes. They were “deeply saddened with the dialogues that [had] transpired over the last 12 hours.” Meaning: “we’re upset that you caught us.” Anyone can see how that is not an appropriate response here. VegNews wants you to believe that your feelings of betrayal (if you have them) are illegitimate. The thing is, they’re not, and here’s why:

1. They Photoshopped images of actual meat to look like vegan dishes. This is straight-up deceit. If it isn’t, I don’t know what is.
2. They used stock photos to illustrate recipes. Have they even tested the recipes they publish? What are they meant to look like? No wonder my quiche didn’t work as well as theirs did – mine didn’t involve any egg!
3. They tried to cover up the truth. This is the worst part. When word got out, VegNews’ first response was to try and hide what they did. If they really think that using stock images is acceptable, and , then why did they try to hide it? Why didn’t they just explain themselves right away? Answer: because they knew their readers would be upset. So, instead, they lied to us some more.

So, now we have a list of sins that VegNews simply did not account for in their (long overdue) response, and a reply that essentially tells us to STFU and praise them for everything else they do well. Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way in the grown-up world. There are three steps to repairing damaged relationships: i) take responsibility for your mistakes, ii) apologise for them, iii) try to make up for your misbehaviour. VegNews has done none of these things. At this point, their reaction has consisted entirely of “This is everybody’s fault but mine!” and “You should be grateful we even publish this magazine!” VegNews does not deserve your forgiveness because they haven’t even asked for it. And, until they do, they will not get it. At least, not from me.

I’ve only been vegan for a little over a year, but I haven’t eaten meat since elementary school. For me, there was no way I could reconcile my steadfast belief in the extension of compassion to all feeling beings and meat eating. At ten years old, this seemed like an impossible feat. It still does. I am healthy as a vegan, and I was healthy as a vegetarian, too. If the only justification for eating meat in my case is taste, well… To me, that’s not an ethically sound decision. Still, I’ve always made exceptions for people who didn’t have the means to access my diet in a way that was healthy. I do believe that there are (some) bodies that require animal products. Beyond that, though, I also believe that there are social and economic contexts that make vegetarianism and veganism inaccessible. Extreme poverty or poor access to vegetables (like in the far North) would put a large financial/environmental burden on people that may not be justifiable in some ways. Ironically, here is where the argument for humane meat falls apart: it ain’t cheap, and it ain’t accessible. Unlike standard, factory-farmed grocery store meat, “ethical” meat is expensive, and mostly available (to urbanites, who comprise the majority of the North American population) in specialised stores and farmer’s markets. The people who buy these meats are therefore in a financial postion to afford them, a social position to find them, and have at least some interest in the well-being of animals and/or the planet. So why are they still eating meat? Barring a health issue, there is nothing stopping these people from cutting it out of their diet.

Except, perhaps, nature.

As Sunaura Taylor argues in this article, nature has long been used to justify bad behaviour. As Taylor states, human biases infuse our ideas about what is “natural,” and what is “justifiable.” Reasonable people no longer apply the nature agument to issues like racism or sexism (“a woman’s natural place is in the kitchen,” “black people are naturally not as worthy as white people”). In fact, most would find those arguments abhorrent – and rightly so! So why does this not apply to animals? The problem is that many omnivores simply do not grant animals the same value as humans… Much like slavers did not view black people as worthy of human consideration, much like women were not officially recognised as people until the last century. This cognitive dissonance allows “conscientious omnivores” to think of themselves as compassionate towards animals, without having to acknowledge the harm they do to them.

What does and does not constitute a body worthy of compassion and respect is a fluid concept. Both slaves and women were viewed as property at one time; it was no more  a crime to kill them than it was to destroy an old carpet. The animals deemed worthy of protection and care are also arbitrarily selected. Most North Americans would cringe at the idea of torturing a dog or shooting an elephant, but don’t think twice about raising a cow for the sole purpose of being able to kill it later. It seems to me that what determines a valuable life is not related to the actual value of that life. Just because people don’t want to think of animals as having a right to life doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t; the prevailing social opinion here is just as worthless as it was in regards to the rights of black people or women. Much like Natalie Portman’s hypocritical return to eggs and dairy for the sake of craving bakery cookies (as if LA isn’t chock-a-block full of vegan options?), the idea of humane meat cannot be examined on its own terms. Once you turn a critical eye to this concept it becomes apparent that, as Taylor claims, “humane meat is an oxymoron.”