Rant: Religion and the food industry: There's what in my yoghurt?

Recently I hit the grocery store needing a mid-afternoon something to fill the hole. I don't know what it is about me, but I eat all the damn time. Honestly, if I am not the original argument for "size is genetic" I don't know who is--like I say I eat all the time, and I (like my parents, who eat differently to me) am short and on the stocky edge of normal. I like to eat protein in the afternoon, because it fills the hole and keeps me out of the candy jar at work (because my already-awful teeth need me eating that stuff like I need another chronic illness). I was also in the mood for something sweet, so I checked out the mousse type selections in the yoghurt fridge. I read the ingredient list, and discovered to my horror, that Nestle mousses include halal gelatine.

Now, giving Nestle the benefit of the doubt, I contacted them to enquire whether the gelatine was from animal sources, and indeed it is--beef gelatine. After this, The Partner conducted a survey of all the products in that fridge--and despite mostly being yoghurt, many of them had gelatine in them. Upon my understanding of all this, I have investigated gelatine as an ingredient, and will not be ingesting anything that contains it in the future.

There are two larger issues at play, here, though. First of all, what the fuck are all these companies doing putting an animal product in yoghurt in the first place? Yoghurt is supposed to be a healthful, vegetarin food, and should be primarily dairy. Bulking these foods out with gelatine is at best making the foods less healthful, and at worst sneaking meat into what should be vegetarian products. I knew the food companies weren't above dirty tricks, but I am significantly unimpressed that yoghurt isn't yoghurt anymore.

The second issue is the use of halal gelatine. I am a firm supporter of religious tolerance. I support everyone's right to live their spiritual life in any way they choose. I do not, however, support any kind of cruelty done in the name of religion or culture, to humans or animals. I do not support customary-rights whaling, I do not support bullfighting as a protected cultural practice, and I do not support halal or kosher slaughter, which I (and the British Veterinary Association) believe to be cruel.

Now, yes, arguably any slaughter is cruel (and it certainly seems especially unnecessary to thicken yoghurt which should be thickened by straining and no other method), but as someone who would truly struggle to meet their nutritional needs without meat, I would at least like my meat products to come to me with as little attached cruelty as possible. I buy free range eggs and chicken, and I try to stick to fish products and (even better) vegetarian options as much as possible (but it won't always be possible). And I believe putting animal-based halal gelatine into anything consumed by a population that would almost certainly deem the method of slaughter cruel is unethical. Certainly, it makes it easier for the food giants--they do not have to deal in multiple suppliers, and their food is suitable for a larger market; but easy and ethical only rarely go hand in hand, and in this case they don't. The food suppliers ought to label more clearly that their food is not suitable for vegetarians, and not suitable for those who support what research shows to be humane slaughter.

As for me? I'm now sticking to Tamar Valley yoghurt. Sure, it costs me $8 for a six pack, but it tastes amazing, doesn't have gelatine of any stripe in it, and leaves me feeling fuller (perhaps because it isn't bulking out the product with gelatine) than any other kind of yoghurt. And as for gelatine? It's off my list.

Rant/Rave: Michael Vick is an asshole, but he is (almost) getting what he deserves (part 2)

Now, admittedly Vick hasn't been proven guilty of the charges, and that is probably why he has not been dropped from the NFL altogether, but my understanding of the case is that it is fairly clear cut; it is not that he might have been involved, it is that he was involved. All arguments about slipperly slopes and innocent until proven guilty aside, this guy deserves the treatment he is getting.

I am sure his Nike sponsorship deal says something about being a role model and not bringing the brand into disrepute, and Nike have printed t-shirts with Vick's face and the word 'Hero' on them (prior to this incident) implying they expect Vick to be a hero. Nike themselves have said they do not condone animal cruelty (whether that is actually true is a whole other issue), meaning they do not consider dogfighting heroic, or a good role model. By involving himself in dogfighting, I would contend that Vick must have known he was taking risks with his career by engaging in this behaviour, and he did it anyway.

Now, I hope that Vick is going to be locked up for a long damn time for what he has done (and I hope that other asshole doesn't get to plea his way out of jail time), but I also think that what is happening to Vick now is something important. It seems to me anyone who would do something like this to an animal must have some status issues, and by stripping Vick of status, the punishment is fitting the crime.

As to the nutters who want to make this a race issue, or to dither about whether dogfighting is worse than rape (frankly, given that animal abusers are often people abusers, we shouldn't be splitting hairs, and I personally believe that animal cruelty is just as bad as rape), they need to stop framing this in terms of their favourite political issues, and think about what happened here: This guy did awful things to any number of animals, for which he should rot in jail at a minimum, and hell at best.

Rant/Rave: Michael Vick is an asshole, but he is (almost) getting what he deserves

Since this blogathon is for the SPCA, I thought I should comment on the Michael Vick case. Michael Vick is involved in dogfighting, which is a horribly cruel 'sport', and apparently he was a particularly cruel specimen. Michael Vick also used to be a footballer with an NFL contract, and Nike and Reebok sponsorship. All three have dropped or sidelined him as a result of his accusations, and public pressure (I was part of a letter writing campaign to get him dropped from both Nike and the NFL).

crap, link surfing takes a while...this will continue in the next post.

Rant: Sony are sickos who have lost my custom

In an earlier post I commended Sony (against my better judgement) for creating video games that girls might like to play. I take it all back. Sony have done a bunch of things that have really pissed me off, including rootkits, non-redbook CDs that actually broke some Apple computers, and supporting the notoriously misogynist Grand Theft Auto by releasing it on the Playstation platform. I am also of the firm opinion (and experience) that most of their hardware, far from being the reliable gear it used to be, is crap, these days.

None of that, though, was enough to make me boycott their stuff. You would think it would be, but no, my love of their Singstar and Buzz series has outweighed my disgust with their general business practices, until now. After using a dead goat as a prop at a party (and making it look like the goat had been recently slaughtered), and then, for fuck's sake, publishing the pictures in their magazine, Sony has lost my business.

Now, Sony are claiming that the goat was already slaughtered by a butcher, and that the "still warm intestines" they invited guests to eat were actually offal. I, frankly, don't think either thing makes their behaviour okay; they glorified the torture of an animal (even though it may not really have been tortured) not just at the party, but to their magazine subscribers worldwide, and for what? To sell a few computer games? Some commenters suggest that if one eats meat, one has no right to complain about this use of the goat; I disagree. Consumption, as a use of a dead animal is wildly different from a Japanese corporation (though run by a Welsh man) using a dead goat as a sales prop -- meat does not glorify cruelty, and is, for some, a necessity of life.

The goat is the really horrific point in this story, but I also feel the need to point out that Sony also had topless women at this party, serving drinks, presumably to increase the "orgiastic" atmosphere. While I am no prude, this seems a particularly exploitative use of women's bodies; selling computer games. I also find it bizarre that the newspaper that broke the story pixelled out the head of the goat, but left a young lady's bare breasts and face on display; the goat was dead and could suffer no further indignity (and the full horror of what Sony did should really be made clear), but the young lady is alive and still subject to exploitation.

While no doubt this revolting stunt by Sony has created a wave of publicity that may even sell more games, they have also overstepped this time. I will be boycotting them, I will be encouraging my friends and workmates to boycott them, and comment on the web suggests many others will boycott them too. If I were in Sony's shoes, I would be making a very hefty donation to humane societies and women's shelters about now, and I would watch my commercial step for many years to come.