Labeling is everything.  Recently, the Indiana legislature wound itself up over “puppy mill” legislation this session, but no one seemed to give a second thought to the treatment of animals that bear the label of  “here for your eating pleasure.”

I just am not sure how people ignore the fact that cows, pigs, turkeys, ducks, sheep, and chickens also feel pain and suffering.  The animals we label as commodities  are raised in an environment that treats them as nothing more than – well, nothing.

We panic over the treatment of “pets” because we have labeled them in such a way that they are seen as companions and partners in our journey through life.  We pamper them, care for them, and bury them in special places.  Yet, when it comes to animals that we have decided to label “food”, we turn our heads to the cruelty and disdain with which they are treated.

CAFOs – where these commodities are housed – are nothing more than houses of death and destruction.  Animals are packed into close quarters, fed hormone-laced grain, and injected with antibiotics to combat diseases that thrive in the close-packed quarters.   All for the purpose of increasing production so that Americans and the rest of the world can consume more meat so that more arteries can become clogged so that more people can die of heart disease.

What a difference a label makes.  Too bad we haven’t figured out the power that those labels contain.


About Charlotte A. Weybright

I own a home in the historical West Central Neighborhood of Fort Wayne, Indiana. I have four grown sons and nine grandchildren - four grandsons and five granddaughters. I love to work on my home, and I enjoy crafts of all types. But, most of all, I enjoy being involved in political and community issues.
This entry was posted in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, Confined Animal Feeding Operations, Cruelty to Animals, Industrial farms and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Iceironman says:

    I hate to admit it, but you are right. I guess I can justify the farm animals because it is surving a higher purpose but it is the same situation. Labeling is everything. Americans for the most part are stupid. We label tax hikes “patriotic”. We change global warming to climate change, because the warming part isnt working out. BO has been the master. He labels govt as bloated and wastefull and doubles the deficit. It is just a sociaty based on how good something sounds, not what it is.

  2. Ice:

    Are you going to tell me that Bush did not label anything to reflect his slanted point of view? How about labeling the invasion and occupation of Iraq “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” Or “Operation Enduring Freedom” for our bombing and destruction of Afghanistan?

    It used to be that we called a war what it was – a WAR. Now we give the wars euphemistic names to try to temper what is actually happening so that we can turn our heads to the death and destruction that is occurring.

    How about labeling subsidies what they are – corporate welfare.

    Global warming has not been re-identified as climate change. They are seen as interchangeable words, but they really are different concepts. Global warming is the overall trigger for climate change.

    Here is some info from a article:

    # Most earth scientists believe humans cause of global warming, according to survey
    # 97 percent of climatologists canvassed believe humans play a role
    # Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters (big surprise)

    One of these days even the doubters will have to acknowledge that global warming is real.

  3. Norma says:

    You’re right. The human race has decided that some are “food animals” and some are “companion animals.” I was in the veterinary field for 14 years, and agriculture for 3. Mistreatment is rare because there’s a profit motive in raising food–a diseased, damaged or mistreated animal doesn’t thrive and is a threat to the bottom line. But animal rightists are also a threat. They believe you shouldn’t even be allowed to own a cat or dog or bird because animals have moral rights too–the same as you. They’d rather kill your pet rather than let you enjoy its companionship. It’s sort of along the lines of abortion thought–although I don’t claim to be able to figure them out–either camp.

  4. Norma:

    You are right – a diseased and sick animal is not valuable. But as animals are shipped to market, the mistreatment begins. Watch undercover videos of how chickens are treated or downed cattle are abused.

    Do I think animals have rights? Yes. They have the right to be treated humanely and with kindness. They feel pain – that is a proven fact.

    I am always amazed at how humans convince themselves that it is perfectly acceptable to put a bullet through a cow’s brain, drag it up still kicking, slit its throat, drain all the blood, cut it into pieces, and then chew it up and swallow it.

    I am not aware of any animal rights activists who would “rather kill your pet than let you enjoy it.” I suppose you can provide some factual basis for that statement.

    I will take my vegetarian lifestyle any day.

  5. Iceironman says:

    I did a nice long report on this. The only rights animals have are the ones we give them. The only rights we have are the ones God gave us and the constitution garauntees it wont take away. That is until now.
    The term is humanly, look into its root.

  6. Ice:

    First, the word I chose is correct – humanely which means “characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy is exactly what I meant. Humanly means “in a human manner.”

    The fowl and creatures were created before human beings (Genesis 1: 20-25) – according to the Bible. Then God gave humankind dominion over them. Dominion means control or authority. If you take control or authority to mean to give rights, then you are not taking into account that we have natural rights.

    I believe that animals should be accorded some manner of natural rights – to live without being subjected to pain in experiments just as humans should not be used as experimental tools (see the Tuskegee Experiment at

    If you read further,

    Genesis 1: 29 says:

    “And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.”

    Genesis 1: 30:

    “And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.”

    Since God created everything before he mentioned seeds, herbs, etc. for eating, God would have been well aware that animals could be the source of food since they had already been created. But, God made no mention of giving the animals to humans as meat.

    Sounds to me like God knew what vegetarianism was. And yet, by Genesis 27: 3 and 4, Isaac was asking his son to go out and kill an animal – “take me some venison” (Genesis 27:3) and “make me savoury meat” (Genesis 27:4). I wonder how this change happened? Could it be that humans had their own ideas of how to treat animals (food) and chose not to listen to what God said?

  7. Iceironman says:

    Wow. I guess I had better quit eating meat? God also said before we were in the womb he knew us (kinda anti abortion, but that deals with children and we are talking about ANIMALS). If you want to go by the Bible, fine with me. I think that would be great. However, being a progressive, you know the bible has little place for your agenda.

  8. Ice:

    How does abortion tie into God knowing us before we were in the womb? Please explain your tie-in.

    You are so wrong as to the Bible and Progressives. Do some research on progressivism, and you will find that the progressive movement ties in nicely with the teachings of the New Testament and Christ.

  9. Iceironman says:

    Char. You defend animal rights to no end. Then I put a brief on a paper while in college stating that God gave man his rights, and the constitution of this country guarentees these rights. You pursued the “meat” arguement of the Bible and quoted scripture.

    So I come to the conclusion, ok, man has gone down hill and began eating animals. Is this good? I dont know, to you it is not. So if you want to argue on the Bible, God knew us before we were in the womb, thus, it is a spirit, a person, a being you support the killing of. I would give up meat and the confinment of animals tomorrow if women would quit killing the spirits, children, and beings in the womb. After all, we should take care of the least of us, and that is the children who cant speak or care for themselves.

  10. Norma says:

    The first death recorded in Genesis is the animals God killed to cover Adam and Eve with their skins after they rebelled. There was no death at all in creation until Adam and Eve rebelled against God’s command not to eat of a specific tree. The first lie was that eating it would make them “like God.” The first exaggeration of the truth was Eve saying they couldn’t even touch it. The first announcement of the Gospel was to the serpent who had led them into rebellion. The first “thou shall not” was given to Adam, not to Eve, who hadn’t been created yet. The first blame game was Eve, then Adam. The first formal worship described is by Cain and Abel. Cain raised vegetables and grain, Abel meat. Only the meat was a satisfactory offering. So the first murder/violence committed among humans was by a vegetarian.

  11. Norma:

    I happen to believe according to the Old Testament that God is formless, and, if God is formless, then how is it God could create a form in God’s image?

    “So God created man in the image of himself,
    in the image of God he created him,
    male and female he created them.”

    Now I am sure there are dozens of explanations out there as to how to explain this. And, I am sure you can give me one. Probably something to the effect that God had in mind what was to be created – maybe by way of spiritual qualities rather than physical qualities.

    And, I am not sure what your point is about Cain slaying Abel. There are good vegetarians and bad vegetarians – just like there are good meat-eaters and bad meat-eaters. So – your point?

  12. HoosierDem says:

    For the record—there are a LOT of evangelical Christians who are “progressive”, “liberal”, “democrat”…whatever you want to call it.

    I’m one of them.

    I believe in the Bible, old and new testaments. I believe we are all sinners but God gave his son Jesus to die on the cross for our sins. I’m active in my church and community.

    I’m also a democrat. Both parties have biblical aspects to them, and both have some not so Biblical parts to them. Christians must merely choose what closely matches their beliefs and vote accordingly.

    The popular belief that all “good” Christians are republicans/conservatives is as ridiculous as the belief that the earth is square. 😉

Comments are closed.