Seventh Generation continues greenwashing of Heifer International

The Inspired Protagonist: Why I Support Heifer…

Recently, Seventh Generation‘s blog, The Inspired Protagonist, invited me to comment on a message from Heifer International’s publicist they posted in response to my blog entry taking Seventh Generation to task for promoting the commodification of nonhuman beings as a holiday giving idea.

However, what was termed a “thoughtful rebuke” was more or less treated as something to be countered, not something to think about. I wasn’t even invited to post as a guest, but was relegated to the comments, which many visitors to the blog may never see. In fact, ever since I wrote my original post, The Inspired Protagonist seems to have been finding ways to give Heifer International a positive spin at their blog via guest posts.

It appears that Seventh Generation has some sort of arrangement with Heifer International, such that they are going out of their way to greenwash the company and justify their support of it. Obviously they wouldn’t want to officially sanction a criticism of HI’s exploitation of animals by offering me a guest post, nor would they allow anything other than the rosiest picture of HI to be portrayed, as their newest post demonstrates.

I do not want to sanction the exploitation of animals, so therefore I suppose I must no longer purchase Seventh Generation’s products, and I let them know as much in my comment following the most recent apologia for Heifer International:

While I welcomed the opportunity to respond to the Heifer International publicist’s comments at this blog, it is disappointingly clear that Seventh Generation is committed to their ongoing partnership with Heifer International (note the link under “Inspiring Actions” in the sidebar), and that any official Inspired Protagonist posts will continue to promote and support that organization rather than carefully examining how a socially and environmentally responsible corporation can help people and the environment without using animals as a means to an end.

It is also clear that I will need to stop buying Seventh Generation products until such time as I can be reassured that the company is no longer actively supporting and promoting the slave-like treatment of animals as commodities instead of the sentient beings that they are.

I hesitated before using the word slave, since I doubt anyone will support the notion that the animals are being whipped and beaten, and I have no firsthand evidence of this, but the term slave-like is meant to imply the impunity with which people bought and sold other beings. In that case it was fellow humans, in this case it is nonhuman beings that have as much of a right to freedom as any human.

As one can easily infer from my original post, I realize that many cultures around the world live in climates where animals can graze on available land that does not provide ready food for humans, while providing milk and eventually flesh for people to eat. It may well be impractical for people in those areas, particularly nomadic cultures, to try to become self-sustaining on an entirely plant-based diet, at least at first. But should we really be supporting the continued use and further degradation of lands inhospitable to humans, or should we be supporting efforts to transform those lands into fertile areas capable of bearing fruit?

Fortunately there are other companies out there providing environmentally-friendly household products that don’t appear to be actively promoting the commodification of animals, and I encourage you to purchase from them.

My response to Heifer International

Note: I tried posting this in the comments at Inspired Protagonist, but was experiencing grave technical errors that prevented me from doing so. I have modified my opening for this post to reflect that it is being posted at AAFL instead.

I’d like to thank Geoff for inviting me over to The Inspired Protagonist to chime in on Mr. White’s response to my original entry. I’d also like to thank readers who have taken the time to share their thoughts there in the comments section.

I am, frankly, a little concerned that my post may not have been well-read, but was rather reacted to as a generic critique of Heifer International. I infer this because a number of my points are either avoided or simply missed by Mr. White in formulating his response.

Anyone that takes the time to read my post can see quite plainly that a) I’m male (Hi, my name is Eric), b) I do propose alternatives, and c) I provide a link to support the contention that Heifer International is doing more to pave the way for an animal-based agriculture in the developing world than merely providing “livestock” and skills to people in need.

The reason Mr. White and I may not find common ground, despite Geoff’s request that we try to do so, is that Heifer International at its very core considers animals to be livestock, meant for our use, whereas animal rights philosophy, in finding that animals exist for their own purposes, considers the common view of animals inherently unjust.

I mentioned that this philosophy can be somewhat more problematic when advocating in developing countries, as often people square off animal rights against human rights in a false dichotomy. But Mr. White seems to have misunderstood my meaning. I never called people who believe animals are less important than humans “fanatic.” Such a view is, of course, the dominant paradigm of our time.

I merely lamented that, when attempting to espouse animal rights when humans are suffering, people who still see nonhuman animals as things instead of individuals generally argue that humans are more important than nonhumans, rather than seeing that one need not pit the two against one another. One can help humans without harming animals. My point in identifying the common (often knee-jerk) response against animal rights in this arena was to point out that, so far, this sort of third-way thinking has been sadly absent.

Unfortunately, the same mindset that pits animals against humans highlights the very same deep-seated beliefs that Heifer International espouses, namely that animals are ours do with as we please.

But the power and strength to subdue animals and bend them to our will does not make it right to do so. We are a powerful and intelligent species, it’s true. And that is why it is ever more incumbent upon us to find ways not to exploit animals, and to implement compassionate alternatives.

Beyond the philosophical reasons, there are still numerous concrete objections to the use of animals in agriculture, even at this small scale. Mr. White seems to have missed my observation that helping out at this level provides a foundation for the growth of livestock industries in these areas in the future (he’s being disingenuous if he suggests that profit-challenged industries aren’t salivating over the potential to exploit developing economies as Europe and the U.S. become less desirable places to raise and slaughter animals). In other words, contributing to Heifer International now lays the foundation for a society that views animal flesh as a commodity and, as that society grows, so will its flesh consumption, along with all the negative environmental, health, and animal issues attendant to modern “animal agriculture.”

Again, because Mr. White seems to have missed it, I also originally suggested a number of alternatives, including giving to Food for Life or VegFam and reclaiming the deserts. In fact, a number of projects have already done this quite successfully, and you can see links to just a small handful of these in my original post as well (Here’s an additional permaculture website).

Remember that, despite the fact that we may not eat exactly the same food, nonhumans drink the same water as humans, and contribute to desertification. Even in our own country the aquifers are being drained at an alarming rate, with a substantial portion of that water going to “domesticated” nonhumans and the food they eat. Why put all those resources into animals, when they are not an energy efficient source of nutrition for humans? It’s rather well known these days that the lower you eat on the “food chain,” the more efficient and sustainable your diet is.

Bearing all this in mind, I’d suggest that Heifer International promotes reliance on livestock, rather than self-reliance. That is a dangerous position to place people whom you’re trying to help become self-sufficient and to grow into a prosperous society in the long-term.

If anything, developing countries offer people that want to help an opportunity to take the lessons we’ve learned in our own cultures to help others grow in ways that are truly sustainable, from the ground up. That means not hooking them on the animal-based agriculture that–with its contributions to global warming emissions, deforestation, and competition for resources–threatens the very survival of the planet we all share.