Chick Fil A Controversy Considered

A chicken sandwich fast food chain has taken over my Facebook feed. Sounds pretty odd, doesn't it?

Here's a commentary I wrote a few days ago on Facebook in response to the Chick Fil A controversy.

Never heard of Chick Fil A two weeks ago. Would love to go back to that time. The fact that a Christian conservative billionaire who thinks selling chicken sandwiches is "the Lord's work" comes out against same sex marriage isn't surprising at all. A fair number of fast food corporations are run by known bigots. Tom Monaghan of Dominoes Pizza instantly comes to mind. It's not that special folks. F
urthermore, Cathy knows his main audience. The Bible Belt. In my opinion, he did a masterful job of tapping into the angst of Christians who believe that they are somehow being oppressed these days. All this attention is making millions for the company, and while it's nice to see other companies publicly stepping back from association with Chick Fil A, there's entirely too much of a mega distraction circus feel to all of this.

So, here's what I think. Why not use this as an opportunity to say to hell with fast food giants? The famous Chick Fil A chicken sandwich contains 16 grams of fat and 1300mg of sodium. Think of how many millions of factory farm chickens have suffered and died to provide sandwiches that contribute to heart disease and all sorts of other chronic, debilitating illnesses? This is the norm for fast food: factory farms and disease producing products. Furthermore, fast food chains are a product themselves of diminished communities, desperately overworked people, crass capitalism that has bankrupted the many at the expense of the few, and an education system that places more value on the ability to take standardized tests than teaching real life, health producing skills like cooking, gardening, and foraging.

There's a great need to expand debates like this. Because simply slamming and boycotting - which has gone on for years on a smaller scale with Chick Fil A - hasn't made much of a dent in their bottom line. And it's also a little too easy for all of this to slip into company X is great because they support gay rights, while company Y is evil because they don't. It's a hell of a lot more complicated than that. Many of the same companies coming out in favor of gay rights these days (knowing that it will probably pad their bottom line, mind you), are also the same ones that basically own Wall Street, the White House, Congress, and our State legislatures. So, while I support any positive affirmation for GLBTQ rights, I think it's vitally important that the lens remain wide, and that folks keep their critical thinking skills fine tuned. End of rant.

At almost the same time, unbeknownst to me until later, fellow Zen blogger Algernon wrote a similar post on his Facebook page. Here's the last two paragraphs.

Opt out of fast food (except for emergency snacks) altogether. Explore (or re-discover) the creative and sexy joys of domestic cuisine. Cook and invite people over (without their iPay electronic devices) and have slow, sensible conversations over good food and wine about what makes a healthy community, what kind of friends are good to have in one's life, and maybe (as you feel comfortable with your company) get a little more direct about the issues that got you riled at the nasty fast food chain in the first place.

I'm not being cute here. I really think this is a more direct way of participating in the world and influencing it, even if only by a degree or two. This seems like a valid and important form of activism-and-community-building to me. (It might also change you some, if you are listening and not just persuading.) There is something about people who are quietly, fearlessly true to their hearts -- and a good dinner. They can be very memorable.

Enviro-Pig and the First Precept

Around bedtime last night, I was listening to the BBC on the radio, and a story came on about a farm in Canada raising Enviropigs. What's an Enviropig? It's a genetically modified pig that's able to digest phosphorus, which means they are less feed intensive and also give off less phosphorus pollution. Like other GMOs, the general argument for meddling with nature is that we need more easier to grow, and more productive food sources to feed an increasing human population around the world.

The ethically tangles around this are so dense, even if you ultimately accept GMOs as necessary. Full disclosure: I've never supported GMOs.

As I listened to the story on the radio last night, I considered the precept of not killing. On the one hand, feeding people who aren't getting fed seems to uphold that precept. However, what about the impact of changing pig DNA? What will that do in the long run for pigs as a species? And what about the focus on the increasing population of humans, to the exclusion of the rest of the planet's needs? How does this fit into the first precept? I've always had some trouble with raising animals solely for people to eat, even when it's done in a humane way. It's different from hunting and fishing, where the animals killed previously lived the life of a wild deer or salmon or whatever. Especially when you look at factory farm animals, it's clear to me that their spirit or animalness is killed off almost right from birth.

Human population discussions are also very dicey. They frequently slip into racist and classist diatribes where poor people of color in countries like India and China are blamed for all the woes of the natural world, never mind that nations with majority white populations have tended to be the biggest polluters, and biggest exploiters of the land up until very recently (when China's impact has greatly increased). And yet, it's also hard to imagine doubling the human population, and not also increasing the damage to the planet we all live on.

So, when considering something like Eviropig, if you unfold a few layers, you start to see issues like abortion, birth control, and family planning under the surface.

The Catholic church has had a very prominent anti-abortion, anti-birth control stance for decades now, the Pope's recent comments notwithstanding. But they aren't the only ones. Every major religion has a significant strand within it that is decidedly focused on blocking attempts at family planning, and working to maintain tight controls on abortions in nations around the world. Buddhism included. The Reverand Danny Fisher recently reported an update to the story about the fetuses discovered at at Buddhist temple. Among other things, the discovery prompted a government crackdown on abortion clinics, which are currently illegal in Thailand, and renewed debate on the country's half century old abortion laws.

I support reducing the number of abortions, but am also all to aware of how decidedly tied to patriarchal views of women and children these laws tend to be. Mostly advocated for and passed by men, highly restrictive abortion laws are almost always linked to bans on family planning measures, including access to contraception, or deep restrictions on non-profit and private groups that wish to offer family planning methods for women.

Enviropig raises all these questions, and even more. Is it true that there isn't enough food in the world to feed people? How are multinational mining, agrobusiness, oil, and other corporations impacting the food supplies and land and waters where said food comes from? Would reforming destructive practices of businesses be a better solution to the "food question" than created GMO plants and animals?

One of my favorite writers and thinkers, Frances Moore Lappe, co-wrote a book about twenty years ago that has some pretty convincing evidence that views that food is a scarce resource in need of being propped up by more production and GMOs is false. I know plenty of people out there would disagree with her analysis, but whenever I hear about another GMO, I think "Who really benefits here?" and "What's the long term impact?"

Another issue with Eviropig to consider is the level of human meat consumption. I've written about vegetarian diets and Buddhism in the past, and tend to see diet as more complex than simply meat or no meat. However, the need for "super pigs" and "super cows," for example, would be greatly reduced if more people either went vegetarian or limited their meat consumption. When it comes to environmental damage, heavy meat consumption - again, especially linked to large scale farming and ranching corporations - is one of the major negative impacts humans are having on the planet.

Eating is something we all do. And how our food comes to us, and what that means for the rest of planet, is something that everyone needs to be considering more closely. The first precept of taking up the way of not killing is a perfect container, in my opinion, for considering such issues. There is more I could write here, but I'll leave it at this for now. How about you? What do you make of Enviropig? And what about all the other issues that come with considering Enviropig?