Response to John Mackey In Re the Animal Compassion Foundation

On January 21, 2005, David Cantor wrote:

Please, Whole Foods Market and animal activists, don’t destroy the abolitionist 10,000 Years Is Enough campaign!

For nearly two years, Responsible Policies for Animals, Inc., has been demanding that our land-grant universities (LGUs), established by Congress to teach agriculture—the cultivation of fields, not animal agribusiness or factory farming—stop teaching animal agribusiness altogether. There is no justification for providing training and research for the flesh, milk, and egg industries.

Eliminating those industries is a crucial need for nonhuman animals, human beings, and ecosystems. The enormous subsidies the LGUs represent help keep those industries afloat while also driving what is probably the worst mistreatment of nonhuman animals in the existence of our species. On the LGUs’ watch and due to their alliance with the flesh, milk, egg, feed-crop, and chemical industries, the small farmers who preferred the less-cruel methods proposed by Whole Foods Market (WFM) and its Animal Compassion Foundation (ACF) have been driven from the land. The percentage of Americans making their living from farming has dropped from more than 50 percent to 0.7 percent, with suicide rates high among farmers in what Osha Gray Davidson calls “the rural ghetto.”

WFM says, “There are many universities and organizations out there doing research making production systems more productive and profitable, but there is no one place where meat producers can go to learn about making their processes more compassionate.”

Exactly! The LGUs’ “making production systems more productive and profitable” is one and the same as their pushing cruel factory farming and promoting the “get big or get out” approach to food production in recent decades.

Even though the LGUs have some “sustainable agriculture” programs, they are window dressing for cruel factory farming and the toxic monoculture feed-crop industries that support it. If WFM thinks “[p]roviding research money to animal scientists at universities around the world to conduct scientific studies of more compassionate animal raising techniques” will benefit nonhuman animals or human ones, it is kidding itself and the rest of the world.

Factory farming has rapidly been moving to China, the Philippines, and other populous and comparatively poor nations. The flesh, milk, and egg industries intend to make their grisly products food staples there as they did in the U.S. by keeping prices low through factory farming with the LGUs’ assistance—to the detriment of nonhuman animals, human beings, and ecosystems. Less-cruel methods have been known for thousands of years—no research is required. If factory farming were eliminated and flesh, milk, and egg production still lawful, there would be more-expensive, less cruelly produced flesh, milk, and eggs—not enough for 6.4 billion people and not profitable enough for the enormous monstrosities that the flesh, milk, and egg industries are. That approach is unacceptable to the industries and to the LGUs. Nothing WFM can do will change that. At the same time, one can easily imagine the charming public-relations side of the industries has been shining its light on WFM in an elaborate effort to get feel-good credits from WFM and the deluded animal-eating part of its clientele.

Three Responsible Policies for Animals (RPA) mailings to the presidents of the 50 states’ original LGUs already indicate the LGUs’ lack of interest in respecting nonhuman animals combined with some interest in pretending to teach “animal welfare.” Twenty of the 50 have replied; 30 don’t even consider it worth discussing so far. One even returned unread, immediately upon receipt, the copy of The Pig Who Sang to the Moon: The Emotional World of Farm Animals that was part of RPA’s third mailing. Far more money comes to LGUs from supporting Big Meat than WFM will ever replace. The LGUs and the industries will laugh all the way to the bank—and to the slaughterhouse ramps and faulty stunning equipment that won’t change at all, except for the worse. Nor will the industries ever find it profitable to allow chickens, pigs, cows, turkeys, and others to live to their species’ natural lifespans — all are killed at only a fraction thereof, even when less-cruel methods are used. Compassion dictates that length of life be considered part of the quality of life for nonhumans as for humans.

WFM’s crucial mistake appears to be thinking compassion can be consistent with raising animals for food. Compassion requires ending the enslavement of nonhuman animals. Even due consideration for human beings requires ending the enslavement of nonhuman animals. Human beings are natural herbivores and endure long-term illnesses from including animal products in their diets. All of the complicated WFM literature about this organically produced chicken’s egg or that antibiotic-free cow’s milk is nonsense: People will be much better off living on an all-plant diet. Just as the flesh, milk, and egg industries created demand for their products and supermarkets joined with them decades ago, demand for a plants-only diet can be created whenever the food sellers who wish to create it choose to do so. That will be much more compassionate than seeking to reinvent industries that really must go if compassion is going to count for anything.

Should WFM decide to move in the right direction, very knowledgeable people and organizations will support it. It will not be in nonhuman animals’ best interests to support any muddling of these crucial matters or any prolonging of the evil alliance between our LGUs and the flesh, milk, and egg industries. Meanwhile, RPA recommends to WFM and all other concerned parties these books that reveal significant aspects of the LGUs’ crucial role in instigating the horrors WFM wrongly claims it can end through research:

Meat Market: Animals, Ethics, and Money by Eric Marcus (2004)

The Meat You Eat: How Corporate Farming Has Endangered America’s Food Supply by Ken Midkiff (2004)

Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health by Marion Nestle (2002)

The Unsettling of America: Culture & Agriculture by Wendell Berry (1977)

Broken Heartland: The Rise of America’s Rural Ghetto by Osha Gray Davidon (1990)

Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile by the National Research Council (1995)

Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: Public Service and Public Policy by the National Research Council (1996)

For additional details on the 10,000 Years Is Enough campaign, please see www.RPAforAll.org or contact me at RPA4all@aol.com.

Working together, we can vote for what we really want for the animals and get it rather than voting for what we don’t want and getting it.

Best wishes,

David Cantor


Executive Director


Responsible Policies for Animals, Inc.>br />

P.O. Box 891


Glenside, PA 19038


215-886-RPA1

Responsible Policies for Animals, Inc., is a 501©(3) educational nonprofit organization showing influential people how to establish responsible policies for animals that are also responsible policies for people and ecosystems. RPA’s 10,000 Years Is Enough campaign aims to end the teaching of animal agribusiness at U.S. universities. Its This Land Is Their Land campaign aims to protect wildlife by ending direct abuses and human land-use practices that harm wildlife, people, and ecosystems. Donations to RPA are tax deductible as allowed by law.

On January 24, 2005, Ellie wrote:

No matter what the claim, a vegan does not promote the exploitation of non-human animals, and would certainly be unwilling to profit from the sale of their bodies. True advocacy means respecting each non-human animal’s interest in staying alive, as well as his/her personal right to exert control over well being and survival. Attempting to regulate the (mis)treatment of farmed animals during the short time they are allowed to live completely disregards these rights.

After 150 years of useless welfarism, we should know that “reform” has been a long traveled, ill conceived road to nowhere. It’s disappointing to find that groups—which purportedly represent the rights of animals— are still taking this road.

On January 24, 2005, Charles Conn wrote:

How wack are you? I’m not going to stop eating meat, even if I have to go kill the animals myself. Therefore, I doubt your distopian wish of mass vegan conversion will ever come to pass. I can’t believe you are wasting your time with WFM instead of going after the true purveyors of animal rights abuses who really don’t care about your stance one way or the other. At least WFM is trying to do something to amelliorate an already dastardly situation, not to mention gives you the time of day for dialogue. So you go on with your protest/vigil. I’ll be thinking about our soldiers dying in Iraq instead.

Charles Conn

[Blog Editor’s Note: The above message came to us from a Whole Foods corporate address; apparently From Charles Conn.

Charles Conn has been identified by TIME.COM as a merchandiser at the Whole Foods Market in downtown New York City.]

On January 25, 2005, Ellie wrote:

Perhaps it’s people like yourself, Charles Conn,

whom the hypocrisy of Whole Foods marketing will appeal to.

You say you won’t stop eating meat, even if you have to do the killing. May we conclude you value your acquired taste for flesh above the lives of non-human animals, and regardless of the damage frivolous meat-eating is doing to our planet?

You convince yourself that non-human animals should be killed to please your palate, while you promote some vague, undefined, “standards” that purportedly lessen their suffering and yet whose success will be judged by none other than the “livestock producers” themselves. Most important, just to please yourself for a few minutes you ignore other feeling beings’ personal interest in living.

With all of this, it’s no wonder you are also able to convince yourself that people who care about animals and this planet do not care about suffering in Iraq, or, perhaps, any human suffering.

Such absurd criticism is not a logical defense of your position.

On January 29, 2005, David Cantor wrote:

I appreciate Lee Hall’s comments. I regret having misspelled Erik Marcus’s first name in my earlier posting. I mentioned his book Meat Market, a very good book — some of which I agree with, some of which I do not — as revealing some of our land-grant universities’ activities making the raising of nonhuman animals for food increasingly cruel. We vegans who think we’re not paying for animal products due to our “personal” choices are paying for those schools’ “animal science” programs through state and federal taxes and sometimes in other ways.

The more animal activists see the importance and significance of the “animal science” programs and work to eliminate them, the better. I hope our movement will give high priority to changing the huge institutions that promote animal exploitation. See www.RPAforAll.org for contact information — please write to your state’s land-grant university president.

Thanks and best wishes,

David Cantor

Responsible Policies for Animals, Inc.

On February 2, 2005, Larry Brothers wrote:

John Mackey may practice a vegan diet but calling him a vegan is fraudulent in the extreme. The underpinnings of veganism are ethical and apparently he missed that meeting. The fact is, he’s a “vegan” who supports the wholesale torture and slaughter of nonhuman animals because it makes him money. There is no difference between him and, say, a vegan hunting guide or a vegan vivisectionist. If he had any balls, he’d hold a press conference and trumpet the fact that, in good conscience, he could no longer carry any animal products in any of his stores, regardless of the monetary consequences. Could you imagine? The ensuing media firestorm would do more to promote discussion of veganism and this country’s horrible abuse of nonhuman animals than any ten campaigns by any of the “animal welfare” groups who presently back him.

Difficult and unpopular ethical positions require sacrifice. Every vegan does it on a personal level. Those who are in a position to make a large scale impact with a single action have an obligation to take that action. I wish I were in Mackey’s position - he has a chance few of us will ever have, even if it means it might cost him money.

On February 3, 2005, Priscilla wrote:

Larry, thank you for writing in.

Although courage cannot be located in any particular genitalia, we do agree with the general point here. Indeed, some months back, we suggested to this to John Mackey.

Of course it is well known that for-profit corporations are obliged to foster the bottom line — which is why consumers, not CEOs, must lead.

Yet here we have a CEO who claims to have an ethic that includes all feeling animals.

One can’t do that, as you rightly observe, and sell them.

If John Mackey really were a vegan, to have this message heard, he’d risk his stake in the empire.

Keep writing,

Priscilla Feral

Friends of Animals

On February 3, 2005, danielle wrote:

I recently moved 4 blocks away from the Portland Oregon Whole Foods. But I ride the bus about 44 blocks to the nearest Wild Oats* for groceries rather than support Whole Foods. Wild Oats stores have relatively small meat and seafood departments, and the only one of their stores in the whole country that sells live lobsters is in Portland Maine. Wild Oats appears to observe the same “humane standards” as Whole Foods otherwise. I believe that most or all Whole Foods Markets sell live lobsters and crabs, a practice which I personally find intolerable. I have seen no indication that they are interested in paring down their enormous meat and seafood departments, which could easily be reduced by two thirds and still be plenty big enough to satisfy their meat-eating customers. They also have shown no interest in any conversation about ceasing the sale of live lobsters and crabs.

I am really heartened to find that I am not the only one scratching my head over the plethora of animal rights groups who have jumped on the Whole Foods bandwagon. I see no good coming from the company’s “animal compassion” posturing. It just looks like another money-making ploy to me. The animal rights movement backing Whole Foods feels a lot like George Baily joining Mr. Potter’s team.

*(Of course, I am not pushing Wild Oats or corporate grocery stores in general, but I don’t have a car and it is the most convenient natural foods grocery store for me right now. I have also shopped at our local natural foods chain New Seasons quite a bit, and have been a co-op member/shopper as well. As corporate food retailers go, I would have to say that Wild Oats is the most good-guyish of the chains.)

Thanks, Friends of Animals!

On February 13, 2005, David Cantor wrote:

In addition to posting my previous message in the Whole Foods Market discussion, I sent John Mackey a letter and detailed information explaining that Responsible Policies for Animals’ 10,000 Years Is Enough campaign promotes basic rights for nonhuman animals and a vegan diet whereas the Compassion Foundation does not and is likely to do significant long-term harm, including undermining RPA’s campaign, which takes the right approach to research for the flesh, milk, and egg industries by aiming to eliminate it entirely. I urged him not to allow any WFM or Foundation funds to go to any university “animal science” program.

I’ve also asked directors of some of the largest organizations that signed on to support the Compassion Foundation to read my previous posting. One who was interested enough to phone me to discuss the matter and whose organization had already signed a statement supporting the goal of the 10,000 Years Is Enough campaign agreed to urge Mackey not to allow funds to go to any “animal science” program.

A problem throughout the 15 years I’ve worked full-time advocating for nonhuman animals has been a tendency to jump on the bandwagon of any effort that purports to “help animals.” I think by establishing the rights of nonhuman animals in law and custom, we can help far more animals over much more time and space than we can by supporting in any way programs that merely use language related to “helping animals,” “promoting compassion,” and so on.

For establishing the rights of nonhuman animals in law, we’ll have to recognize that even promoting veganism per se won’t be sufficient. While the number of vegetarians (I define that term as vegan and don’t consider people vegetarian merely for not eating flesh) has increased, the number of flesh, milk, and egg eaters has increased much more rapidly. As Howard Lyman agreed on the 10,000 Years Is Enough Go Vegan Texas! broadcast (he knows a lot about the land-grant universities and the industries), the flesh, milk, and egg industries will crash economically when their institutional and governmental support is removed. That is what we must accomplish, regardless of who may or may not get it.

Years of research convinced me the land-grant universities (LGUs) are the most important institutions to remove from the flesh, milk, and egg industries. That is because the huge the “animal science” programs are huge subsidies to the industries; many segments of society can influence the LGUs; the LGUs intermittently need to cut their budgets; industry propaganda programs aimed at younger students, such as 4-H and Future Farmers of America, will become largely irrelevant when the LGUs no longer provide training for the flesh, milk, and egg industries; many elective and non-elective government entities are relevant to the “animal science” programs — USDA, state agriculture departments, Congress and theie agriculture- and education-related committees, the state legislatures and their agriculture committees, and more; teaching untruths as is essential for maintaining “animal science” programs is scandalous for a university (even though few people have yet heard of this particular scandal) and all relevant substantive facts (as opposed to petty institutional facts) favor a plants-only diet for our species; the LGUs teach and give degrees to large percentages of our society’s most influential people; many people who are not persuaded by interpersonal approaches to adopt an plants-only diet will be more likely to do so when they see we’re demanding that the universities originally dedicated to agriculture to sever ties completely with flesh, milk, and eggs; and food choices are heavily influenced by educational institutions and people whom many people see as “role models,” etc. — not just by facts regarding animal exploitation, ecosystem destruction, and personal health, so when significant needed changes occur at the LGUs, I think a huge number of people will reconsider some food choices.

Meanwhile, I literally have an infinite amount to do, so I can’t dwell on this one thing for a large portion of my time, even though I think it’s important. If I receive a reply from WFM, I’ll post a description of it.

Best wishes,

David Cantor

Responsible Policies for Animals, Inc.

On February 15, 2005, David Cantor wrote:

I appreciate Lee Hall’s response to my most recent posting as I did Lee’s previous one. I also keep thinking I should find lots of people entering into this discussion as it seems to me to have so much to do with important aspects of animal advocacy.

I believe there is no such thing as humanely raising any animal for food or humanely slaughtering any nonhuman animal. I believe some aspects of these practices can be made less cruel but never humane. Humane means having the best human traits — compassion, mercy, etc. — and those are never reflected in animal exploitation.

I also believe there is no such thing as sustainable “animal agriculture” and that Howard Lyman is probably correct if he said he doesn’t think he’ll see an end to animal slaughter in his lifetime.

I think both of those notions — that “animal agriculture” can be either humane or sustainable

— are mistakes Whole Foods Market is making in establishing its Compassion Foundation.

Obviously, my referring to Howard’s knowledge of the land-grant universities (LGUs) and the flesh, milk, and egg industries as a reason his agreeing with my and Responsible Policies for Animals’ (RPA’s) assessment of the likely economic impact of getting the LGUs out of those industries contradicts none of my beliefs as stated above.

And I thought I was already entirely clear that I and RPA oppose the Compassion Foundation.

Nor do I believe there is any such thing as animal agriculture. That is why I and Responsible Policies for Animals (RPA) have been changing our usage from “animal agriculture” to “animal agribusiness” or using other terms where other terms are accurate. “Agriculture” derives from words meaning the cultivation of fields. Raising animals for food is not the cultivation of fields. Raising plants for food isn’t inherently inhumane, and raising animals for foods is. So “animal agriculture” is a euphemism that conveys a false notion that raising animals for food can be humane. Use of that term also implies serving the flesh, milk, and egg industries is a legitimate function of he LGUs’ colleges of agriculture, since Congress established them to teach and promote agriculture.

Some people concerned about these matters may also wish to know that some states — I don’t yet know how many — have laws requiring the LGUs to serve the flesh, milk, and egg industries. RPA will appreciate receiving text of any of those laws anyone is able to make time to obtain. In my view, those laws are not as significant an obstacle to the 10,000 Years Is Enough campaign as they may seem, but one LGU president has used his state’s law as an excuse not to cooperate. As time and priorities permit, we’ll be addressing those laws.

I don’t agree that the government only has the power we the people vest in it. I constantly observe that things the government does are at the behest of industry, not of any people in the usual sense. I do think, though, that we the people have the power to have the government serve us and the nonhuman animals — but only if we organize and act effectively. Those two understandings are not contradictory. Big business and other wealthy interests constantly pursue their concerns with government in ways we the people know nothing or little about. They’re much more effective than we the people, who’ve always been understood to be unorganized for most purposes. As stated in a letter I just submitted to a newspaper, I think we face taxation without representation — that’s how weak, poorly organized, uncertain, and complacent I think we the people have become. Isn’t that why we animal advocates have to work constantly just to see our cause lose ground? And isn’t that why the legislatures will only consider animal welfare adjustments, not the rights of nonhuman animals that would eliminate many of their big industry patrons?

Thanks and best,

David Cantor

Responsible Policies for Animals, Inc.

On February 25, 2005, mickey wrote:

hey all.

I’m SO glad this is surfacing and being circulated, you have no idea. How many times have I gone into whole foods in the past, walking out disgusted by the amount of meat and animal products in there, people just as fat and satiated as they are in safeway, puffed up on dairy, feeding their poor children cheese, milk, yogurt, ice cream, “organic” hamburgers…. what a farce. “oh but it comes from whole foods, its more humane and better for us, we’re helping….” bullshit. I’ve stopped shopping there, because all i see is a another hypocritical corporate monster salivating in his office at how he’s one of the biggest growing ceos with more and more stores opening every year around the world. If he truly stuck to his supposed “vegan philosophies”, he would listen to us all, and he would pull all those animal products off the shelves this very minute making the statement of the century, apologize to the world, risk his ego and his finances, and be remembered for it! Murder is murder, no matter what, we all know that. I LOVE the response letter written to John Mackey. Thank you Priscilla!!!! SOOOOOO true, he is just sugar coating it all, while still demeaning these precious animals lives and all their beauty. Vegan my butt. He doesnt see sentient beings, he sees money going straight to the bank. I wouldn’t doubt if he’s a full blown carnivore. Cripes, look at our president, FULL ON liar and hypocrite, but does he come clean about anything? NO! John Mackey has as much compassion as Bush as far as I’m concerned. If he came out and was honest that he was a carnivore, and had no vegan philosophies, Ok, then i can understand he’s just a killing machine like the rest of the corporate world. But to have a natural food store with that much exposure and power to influence folks, and to claim to be vegan, and STILL he stocks his store with as much animal products as safeway and costco, it makes me sick.

On February 25, 2005, VeganSam wrote:

I don’t love the idea either. But hey, give John a little break, He is a new “Vegan” and making efforts to improve the situation. He does not have total control over Whole Foods Markets. Would it be better if there was no “Vegan” at the top? All change takes time e.g. Constitution, Emancipation Proclamation, Civil Rights. Keep making your points, but no need to attack especially folks attempting to make a positive change even if small;-)

On February 25, 2005, Ron_H wrote:

In the past I have supported two groups on that list that support WFM. That support shall cease come Monday when I can cancel it. One … shall receive a letter from me explaining why I am ceasing my monthly monetary support deduction from my account. The reason is simple: I don’t wish to support any group that claims it is seeking to alleviate animal suffering and yet supports the continued consumption of them. This is a farce of massive proportions. Give me a break! I have been a vegan for 25 years and I thought I had heard it all. Sheesh!!

On March 16, 2005, alfred wrote:

OK, I am not an animal welfarist. I am an animal rightist. I am so sick of the bipartisan b.s. If whole foods stops selling meat they will go out of business, that means everyone will continue to buy tortured meat from King’s, albertson’s…etc, etc…If John’s vision happens and we can work to create ways that whole foods can sell truely non-abused, non-tortured animals then it is hopeful that the market will shift. I would surely rather have the chance to reduce the number of animals that are tortured and live in misery to none (even if it still means people will eat meat) than to think that anytime soon eating meat will be outlawed. I don’t eat meat, people do, if we can kill animals humanely rather than inhumnaely tomorrow, rather than waiting 100 years hoping everyone will stop eating meat while we continue to torture animals, I choose not to wait. Civil rights took years and steps…many of both. If you read anything at all you will see that civil rights more resembles “civil welfare” than it does “civil rights.” DO you think african americans were saying, “ok, if we can’t have both anti-lynching laws and the abolition of the poll tax, then we choose neither”??? If whole foods can create an environment and an awareness that will outlaw factory farms then I think that is far better than puting WFM out of business so the other companies (safeway…etc, etc) can decide how much meat they want to feed us and how much faster they can torture animals. The problem with most AR people is they are not that smart and frankly they are quite arrogant and self righteous. You want to be the next great thing. If I have to choose between saving the life of 1 out of 2 cows or saving neither, I choose saving the one.

On March 16, 2005, alfred wrote:

Mickey don’t be stupid…I know your vegan your perfect!!!If WFM goes out of business then any hopes of reforming the meat industry are lost. you all should be hopeful and optimistic that someone with that much power cares…its just so sad that people can be so viciuos…arrogant. John is giving animals a chance to live a life free of suffering (now if he doesn’t do that, then it is a different story) and you would rather have nothing. Things take time as I previously posted…I can’t believe I am wasting my time with this, I can’t believe your wasting your time attacking WFM attack KFC (oh wait…that’s right there is a peta imposed moratorium on attacking KFC) well attack McD’s (oh yeah they treat chickens ‘better’) attack someone else. This guy means well. DO you know how commerce works, do you understand at all anything about business and market responses. Take whole foods out of the EQ and you take a major step in animal liberation away from the table…