Slate's Green Lantern compares the environmental impact of drinking soy milk v. cow's milk. The conclusion: "soy is the somewhat more eco-conscious choice," a conclusion reached somewhat reluctantly because soy milk is so much more processed than cow's milk.

I've repeatedly complained that the talk about global warming and environmentalism has been oddly silent about vegetarianism as an option, even though it's one of the single most effective ways to reduce carbon footprint. As more evidence of this, see Christopher L. Weber and H. Scott Matthews, Food-Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the United States, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 3508–3513, which argues that reducing meat consumption does a lot more to reduce emissions than jumping on the "local food" bandwagon. The punchline (from the abstract):

dietary shift can be a more effective means of lowering an average household’s food-related climate footprint than “buying local.” Shifting less than one day per week’s worth of calories from red meat and dairy products to chicken, fish, eggs, or a vegetable-based diet achieves more GHG reduction than buying all locally sourced food

PETA is funding a $1M prize for the "first person to come up with a method to produce commercially viable quantities of in vitro meat at competitive prices by 2012."

I don't know much about in vitro meat, but I can see why it would be so controversial. In vitro meat reduces or eliminates the ethical/animal rights and environmental justifications for vegetarianism, which makes eating meat a more justifiable decision. On the other hand, any health concerns about eating meat would remain, plus for many existing vegetarians, our diet is so ingrained in our lifestyle that we can't fathom eating meat under any circumstance. (And, for "vegansexuals," that includes intimacy with a meat-eater).

At minimum, it's easy to see why the PETA move would be controversial among its members and employees. After all, it runs completely counter to the "meat is bad" mantra that has been thoroughly instilled into them. Personally, I have no interest in eating "in vitro meat" but I applaud PETA for taking an aggressive approach to address some of the major social ills associated with meat manufacturing.

I'm backlogged as usual, but reading through the August 2007 issue of VegNews, I saw that Christine Garcia of the Animal Law Office was named one of the 25 most fascinating vegetarians by VegNews. I'm a little unclear on the state of her practice; her website says that she is not taking any new clients until mid-March 2007. Looks like her website could use some updating. But the vignette about her practice was nevertheless inspiring, especially this part:

"I offer a vegan discount to clients. Anyone who seeks my services is entitled to a sliding discount depending on how many days a week they pledge to adopt a vegan lifestyle....I implemented this because I hated representing people's animals, then going out to lunch with them and seeing them eat more animals."

This is the first time I've heard of a lawyer offering a vegan discount, but I respect someone who puts dollars behind her beliefs.

From the NYT: There appears to be a downward shift in the demand curve for hunting. In 1975, there were over 19M+ hunters; in 2006, only 12.5M. This decrease might reflect widespread changes in consumer preferences, but some states are losing a little hunting permit fee revenue. For that reason and others, states believe it's their responsibility to stimulate demand for hunting. Among the initiatives:

* lowering the minimum hunting age (just like the tobacco companies
* "learn-to-hunt classes for single mothers"
* expanded state-sponsored trips for women, children under the age of 15 and disabled people
* state-sponsored youth hunting weekends
* "a 'Leave No Child Inside' initiative last year that encourages families and children to try fishing and hunting."

Did you notice a running theme? Just like the tobacco companies, states appear to be trying to hook the kids early.

Ironically, many of these states have shut down Internet hunting, which might have actually expanded the ranks of hunters. And it's hard to distinguish Internet hunting from the modern state of physical-space hunting, which as one hunter described, "the habit is to ride an all-terrain vehicle to a tree platform, pour out a bag of corn and sit waiting for the prey to show up."

Regular readers of this blog know that I wish that the environmental benefits of vegetarianism were better understood. To that end, another NYT article explores the topic. This article recaps a lot of social science I've blogged before, but I hadn't heard that "an estimated 30 percent of the earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production."

The article touches on how livestock demand for soy and corn raises the price above the prices for these grains that lower-income countries can afford. We might dismiss the comparatively higher prices as the consequence of normal market forces, but given the upstream subsidies used to encourage meat manufacturing, it's a distorted marketplace effect with life-and-death consequences.

The article concludes with a prediction for the future: "meat may become a treat rather than a routine. It won’t be uncommon, but just as surely as the S.U.V. will yield to the hybrid, the half-pound-a-day meat era will end."

I've mentioned before that I've found vegetarian restaurants in some pretty obscure locations, such as the five-star restaurant in Murphys and the raw restaurant in a Las Vegas mini-mall miles from the Strip. This weekend, using my typical technique of investigating vegetarian restaurant lists, we discovered another surprising find.

Pizza Plaza (6211 Shattuck Ave Oakland, CA) is an all-vegetarian pizza joint--and winner of a Best of Veg 2007 award in the vegan pizza category--in a most unlikely neighborhood in North Oakland. Perhaps its location isn't too unexpected as it's near the border of Berkeley, home to numerous excellent vegetarian options. However, like many parts of Oakland, this particular stretch of Shattuck is hardly confidence-inspiring. As we pulled up amidst the boarded-up shops and modest residential and commercial buildings, we looked at each other and wondered if this was a wise choice.

Our confidence didn't improve when we walked into the restaurant and saw 4 plastic tables, a large pizza counter, some wood beads "separating" the eating area from a storage area, and a leftover "Happy New Year" sign over the counter. Even worse, we were the only customers to be found on a Sunday afternoon at noon. What in the world had we gotten ourselves into?

My confidence turned around when our friend started chatting with the proprietors, a lovely couple from Sudan who fled the strife in Sudan looking for a better life. The husband is a microbiologist but when he arrived in the US, he started working in pizza joints to pay the bills. Eventually, as a vegetarian, he decided to start up a vegetarian pizza joint.

The menu offers a host of attractive options. They divide the menu into vegetarian and vegan, offering the most extensive list of vegan pizzas I can recall seeing. They offer other interesting items, including a vegan spaghetti with "meat" sauce and a vegan ceasar's salad with grilled vegan chicken. They even carry Maggie Mudd ice cream among other vegan desserts.

We ordered four "slices" of different vegan pizzas listed on the menu (each $6). Each "slice" was about 4x6 inches and cut diagonally into two. It was enough to satisfy most lunchtime appetites. The pizza crust was a sturdy whole wheat crust that I thought was tasty, the "cheese" was lightly sprinkled over each slice and pretty realistic, and the various mock meats were well integrated. However, the tomato sauce wasn't especially flavorful, and in the end I thought all four menu items tasted about the same. Taste-wise, I'd grade the pizzas as a "B"--competent but not spectacular.

If you're in Oakland and looking for something different, or if you're a vegan with a hankering for an old-fashioned pizza joint, definitely check this place out for a take-out lunch. (I would not go here after dark, and it's not well set up for eating in). As for us, I'd go back in the right situation; but if I'm coming from the Peninsula, chances are I'm going to drive a little further to some of our Berkeley favorites.

Some other reviews:
* BAVeg
* Yelp
* HappyCow

I love stuff like this. Feel like having a hamburger? Choose to eat a peanut butter & jelly sandwich instead, and you will save 2.5 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions, 280 gallons of water, and up to 50 square feet of land from deforestation or other destruction. As the PB&J Campaign website says, " You don't have to change your whole diet to change the world. Just start with lunch."

A couple of weeks ago, the NYT ran a lengthy article on vegetarian restaurants in San Francisco, spotlighting Greens, Millennium, Herbivore, Cha-Ya and Cafe Gratitude. I've never tried Cha-Ya, so I'll have to check it out. Of the others, Herbivore is my favorite. The food at Millennium is better, but at a premium price. On a cost-benefit basis, Herbivore is a better deal. I wouldn't go back to Greens on my dime (although the view is splendid), and Cafe Gratitude is farcical in its feel-good approach, plus I'm not a huge raw foods fan.

I thought it was amusing that the VegNews editor complained that she's bored of the vegetarian offerings in town. Even if the City lacks good South Indian restaurants like Udupi Palace, San Franciscans are blessed with their options!

Lisa and I celebrated our 10 year anniversary in Mendocino, my favorite tourist destination of all time. Great scenery, great food, lots to do. This time, we stayed at the MacCallum House right in town, which turned out to be a disappointment. See my Epinions review of our stay at the MacCallum House. Read my other reviews about Mendocino:

* Mendocino Overview
* Mendocino Headlands State Park
* Russian Gulch State Park
* Jughandle State Reserve
* Hendy Woods State Park
* Montgomery Woods State Reserve

This trip we tried Cafe Beaujolais for the first time. It doesn't try hard to cater much to vegetarians, so I wouldn't recommend it on that basis. However, the two options we found were both excellent. The bread was terrific too. We went for lunch, and I think that's a much better value than dinner. Two odd facts: (1) the floor noticeably slopes, so it's like eating in a mystery house; (2) at our lunch, we were the youngest couple there by at least a decade--at my age, this doesn't happen very often any more.

We also went back to Mendocino Cafe, one of my all-time favorite restaurants. I like it because it's casual and fun with terrific food. However, I was disappointed to learn that some of the putatively vegetarian dishes have undisclosed fish sauce in them. Ask before you order!

Finally, we were blown away to discover the Living Light Culinary Arts Institute in Fort Bragg, which bills itself as "the premier organic raw vegan school in the world." Who knew that Fort Bragg could support a major raw foods cooking school? They have a cafe as part of the school, so we were thrilled to try it out. I'm usually not a big fan of raw foods restaurants; I find them overpriced and typically not very tasty. This place definitely wasn't cheap, but I thought it served the best raw food dishes I've had. I thoroughly enjoyed everything we tried. I think Fort Bragg gets unfairly overshadowed by Mendocino, but the Living Light Cafe is yet another reason to spend some time there.

Over the years, we have found vegetarian restaurants in some wacky/unexpected places, but Mineral Restaurant ranks up there as one of our most surprising discoveries. Mineral Restaurant is a high end vegetarian restaurant designed to compete with other five-star Northern California vegetarian favorites such as Greens, Millennium and The Ravens. But instead of being located in a major metropolis like San Francisco or an eco-friendly upscale tourist town like Mendocino, Mineral is off the beaten track in downtown Murphys, a lovely but tiny town in the bucolic Gold Country about an hour from Stockton. How in the world can this small community support a vegetarian restaurant, let alone one charging top-of-the-line prices?

Mineral seems to be doing just fine, thank you very much. It celebrated its 1 year anniversary, which is probably 11 months longer than anyone expected, and every seat filled on a Friday night in late October (so make reservations). Then again, the restaurant only seats 20 (including the bar but excluding the outdoor patio). But they run a lean operation, with a staff of two—the owner-server and the owner-chef. So between low labor costs, high prices and filling to capacity on the weekends, perhaps the economics work out OK.

Mineral uses big plates to serve small portions. I suspect many meat eaters laugh when their plates arrive; this visual presentation may psychologically reinforce that they are going to go home hungry. But the three course tasting menu (which is what everyone orders) was plenty of food. At the end, we were too stuffed to contemplate dessert.

Although the restaurant isn’t fully vegan, the restaurant is an excellent choice for a vegan looking for a special meal.

Because Mineral’s menu changes constantly, I’m not going to critique each dish. Instead, to generalize the experience, most dishes had multiple and complex flavors, of which one was typically a little sweet. My wife absolutely loved the food, and she ranks it among the best she’s ever had. I was less enthusiastic. I thought the food was good but overly complicated and expensive--including the wine tasting, we ended up spending about $60/person. I would be just as happy spending $15/person at a much lower-frills but still tasty restaurant like Udupi Palace or Native Foods.

Although I’m not sure about the value proposition, I enthusiastically recommend that you check out Mineral if you’re willing to spend top dollar for a top quality culinary experience. It’s certainly competitive with Millennium as one of the best vegetarian restaurants in Northern California (I think Greens is overrated and isn’t close to either). Better yet, enjoy a weekend as a tourist in Murphys. There is plenty to do, see and eat. As an added bonus, come back to Mineral a second time for lunch. Lisa and I both thought their “X-burger” made for an outstanding and affordable lunch.

UPDATE MAY 2008: Perhaps the economics weren't so great after all. Mineral has rechristened itself as the "Mineral Wine Bar and Kitchen' with a revamped, noticeably cheaper and far less vegan-friendly (but still vegetarian) menu.

Slate has an article recapping the environmental consequences of meat eating, vegetarianism and veganism. The article rightly explains the complexities of doing proper environmental cost accounting of our food choices, which must include both the manufacturing consequences but also the consequences of transporting food. The science is currently cloudy, so it's not 100% clear that veganism is always better environmentally than vegetarianism. At the same time, it IS clear that this issue is hardly getting the attention it deserves, which means that we as a society are missing obvious and easy ways to reduce our footprint on the earth.

Over on Post Punk Kitchen, they are reminiscing about TV shows (especially 80s sitcoms) depicting vegetarianism or animal rights issues.

From Newsweek:

Religion and social status have always been deal breakers in relationships. But for those navigating today’s dating pool, the currents may just have gotten rougher....there’s the friction between vegans and vegetarians. It might sound counterintuitive; after all, neither group eats meat. But for many vegans—who also eschew animal products like the dairy and eggs eaten by vegetarians—love may not be enough to conquer ideology.

Congratulations to the "Dosa Man," who operates a Sri Lankan vegan cartstand in Washington Square, for winning the Vendy Awards, a competition among Manhattan cart vendors.

My wife and I have been a little baffled by the newfound attention paid to global warming and reduced footprints following An Inconvenient Truth. As consumers, we have been encouraged to take a wide variety of steps that have relatively small beneficial net effects--changing lightbulbs, buying carbon offsets, etc. Meanwhile, there is an obvious option that no one seemed to want to talk about--if we really want to reduce our footprint on the Earth and help reduce global warming, one of the single most effective steps people can take is to reduce their consumption of meat. Yet, this option--which requires no large outlays of cash like buying a hybrid car--is virtually ignored in the discussion, even though the science suggests that it would be more effective than changing cars. As a PETA rep says, "Environmentalists are still pointing their fingers at Hummers and S.U.V.’s when they should be pointing at the dinner plate." So why isn't vegetarianism/veganism getting the attention it deserves?

A recent NYT article discusses this phenomenon. According to the article, in response to a UN report concluding that the livestock industry produces more greenhouse gas than all types of transportation, animal rights groups are (IMO, belatedly) embracing global warming as a reason to go vegetarian/vegan. In contrast, many environmental groups continue to sidestep the issue. As the Sierra Club rep says, "we do not find lecturing people about personal consumption choices to be effective." I agree that lecturing isn't good, but consciousness-raising could work spectacularly, especially given how much attention and money is being allocated to the global warming issue right now.

Meanwhile, if you're buying carbon offset credits, you might consider saving your money and instead offsetting your impact by adding some extra vegetarian meals to your diet.

From the WSJ: the battle to outlaw Internet hunting rages on. The Humane Society has boosted the number of outlawing states to 33, and along the way, gotten some bonus coverage, like California's ban on "Internet fishing" (I'd love to see that technology). The Humane Society is pleased with its success; its representative says this is "one of the fastest paces of reform for any animal issue that we can remember seeing." Well, of course, given that no one lobbying against the law! As a result, according to the WSJ, of the 3,563 legislators who have voted on Internet hunting bills, only about 1% (38) have voted no. At least a few legislators have realized the stupidity of this initiative. As one of the naysayers, Gerald W. Hocker from Delaware, said, "Internet hunting would be wrong...But there's a lot that would be wrong, if it were happening."

One remarkable thing about the effort to ban Internet hunting--it has produced some of the most god-awful asinine quotes from our public officials. I've blogged many such quotes before (check my vegetarian category from 2005), but the WSJ adds a few more pearls:

* "Melanie George Marshall, a Delaware state representative who sponsored an Internet-hunting ban that passed in June, considers her legislation a matter of homeland security. "I don't want to give ideas to people," she says, "but these kinds of operations would have the potential to make terrorism easier.""
* "Ms. Marshall, the Delaware state representative, realizes that nobody is actually killing animals on the Internet, but thinks now is the time to act. "What if someone started one of these sites in the six months that we're not in session?" "

For more on this topic, see my Internet hunting editorial from 2005.

HT: Techdirt.

It's been a few years since I've eaten dairy ice cream regularly. (When I eat "ice cream" at home, usually it's Double Rainbow Soy Cream). However, I do eat dairy ice cream occasionally when I'm out of the house, but no more. I was troubled to learn that some ice creams now contain "ice structuring antifreeze," which is genetically modified fish proteins derived from an unattractive eel-like fish called the ocean pout. I'm not thrilled about genetically modified proteins, but I'm even less thrilled about non-vegetarian ice cream. So, from now on, it's only vegan ice cream for me.

Speaking of vegan ice cream, we finally tried Maggie Mudd recently in Bernal Heights. What a spectacular vegan treat! Definitely worth the schlep.

The NYT ran an op-ed called "Death by Veganism." Some "high"lights:

* "You cannot create and nourish a robust baby merely on foods from plants."
* "There are no vegan societies for a simple reason: a vegan diet is not adequate in the long run."
* "Children fed only plants will not get the precious things they need to live and grow."

FWIW, our kids are vegetarian, not vegan, and they do consume a fair amount of dairy (and some egg) in their normal diet. I'd love to see some scientific critique of this article though; it seems more troll-y and designed to spur sales of the author's book than a rigorous argument.

UPDATE: The vegan blogs are going crazy in response to this article. See, e.g., Vive le Vegan. And this doctor stands behind a vegan diet for kids.

UPDATE: Another doctor blasts the editorial's author.

AP article on the proliferation of vegetarian restaurants. The article says there are 1,000-1,200 nationwide, a number that sounds very low to me, but it also says the number has doubled in the past 7 years, which I can believe. The article focuses on the growth of high-end vegetarian restaurants: "Once a network of grungy, obscure cafes, the vegetarian and vegan experience in some cities has blossomed on par with its carnivorous counterparts, complete with Zagat ratings and celebrity clienteles." While all of this is good news, I really don't like the headline. Maybe some day newspapers will run headlines like "Hamburger joints not just for carnivorous freaks."

Everyone loves rankings, so here is the 2007 ranking of the best services in Mountain View. I think in general this list is very good, but of course we could quibble--our favorite burritos are from Bueno Bueno; we think Garden Fresh (a cherished institution in our pre-Milwaukee days) has slipped; and I've never understood the big fuss over Amber India. But other conclusions are spot-on: Amarin for Thai food (ask for the special/separate vegetarian menu), and Hobee's for breakfast. Good stuff.

Yet another recap on the legislative frenzy to stop Internet hunting despite the lack of anyone in the market or wanting to be. I am always fascinated by the shifting basis of what constitutes the essential attributes of "hunting"--the lack of consensus on that topic makes it very hard to say why Internet hunting is different, but everyone quoted in virtually every article on the Internet hunting topic is sure that it is different!

Consumer Attitudes to Animal Welfare, A Report for Freedom Food by IGD

I've blogged repeatedly on dichotomous consumer perceptions towards animals, such as consumers freaking out about SaveToby.com even though they would gladly eat Toby if prepackaged in the supermarket. As a result, I've asserted that consumers' willful ignorance of the meat manufacturing process increases consumer demand for meat compared to the "true equilibrium" level of demand if consumers actually understood the manufacturing process.

We get some further evidence of this in this new report about British consumers of meat. From the executive summary:

Consumers are increasingly concerned about the issue of welfare standards of food producing animals. ... However, consumers also lack knowledge on the food production system and, while they may express a demand for information on animal welfare, consumers will also voluntarily ignore the information, to avoid the realities of production.

Previous research has shown that consumers regularly over claim their propensity to purchase products with higher standards of animal welfare. Their willingness to pay more for improved animal welfare is in reality sometimes not put into practice. While consumers are more conscious about their food and where it has come from, many still do not use their beliefs within the decision making process.

...

This new research also reveals that consumers know very little about the supply chain, and in particular they are deliberately ignorant of anything that happens between slaughter and consumption. The only area that consumers do know – and want to know about – is the rearing and living stage prior to slaughter. By feeling that animals have been treated well at this stage, it helps to alleviate the guilt that consumers feel about consumption. This, in turn, drives the demand for higher welfare foods:

[Here's a nice money quote:]

“Higher welfare is about making sure that they can run around, and have a nice life before we eat them!” Leicester,Mixed Gender, Empty nesters, (BC1)

This raises a conundrum I haven't been able to solve. Normatively, I want consumers to confront the ugly truth about meat manufacturing, but descriptively, I have no idea how to accomplish this--if consumers aren't interested, there are very few ways to force them to care. The best I've come up with is putting a picture of Bessie on every package of meat containing Bessie, but I don't think that really hits the nail on the head.

In 2005, I had a series of posts about noteworthy burgers, including the 12.5 pound Zeus burger, the 15 pound Beer Barrel Belly Buster (only 10.5 pounds of beef) from Denny's Beer Barrel Pub (see the photo), whale burgers and poodle burgers.

Denny's Beer Barrel Pub has reignited the burger wars with the Beer Barrel Main Event Charity Burger, a 123 pounder (only 80 pounds beef) that costs $379. See the photo--mmm mmm good. Don't ask about calories--as the owner says, "If you were worried about calories you would be at home eating Kellogg's." Sounds like it would be a little pointless to ask about the number of cows sacrificed for the cause, too.

In any case, the escalating burger wars may spark a new variant of Moore's law by doubling the poundage every 2 years. In 2036 we'll be talking about the Galaxy burger which weighs more than all of the matter in our galaxy.

The AP updates the status of laws banning Internet hunting, a topic I blogged about extensively in 2005 and even wrote an editorial about. Encouraged by the Humane Society (on a roll with their regressive perspectives about Internet law), 25 states have now passed anti-Internet hunting laws. A proposed law is pending before the Connecticut legislature, but this law looks especially silly now that the only website ever to offer Internet hunting stopped doing so some time ago. So what, exactly, are Connecticut legislators regulating--the hypothetical prospect that a new player will decide to create this "industry" despite 25 other state laws to the contrary? Glad to see that there are not more pressing problems in Connecticut than to regulate non-existent websites!!!

Why is the National Pork Board, an extension of the US government, buying the trademark "the other white meat" for $60M? One economist speculates that it's because the seller, the National Pork Producers Council, is a private actor, which means the $60M wealth transfer can be used for lobbying purposes and other activities that aren't available to a government actor. I think it would be hard to find lots of comparable transactions where a trademark like this was valued so richly.

Whatever the case, I remain completely confused why the government is trying to encourage us to eat pork products. It reminds me of the dust-up over the California "Happy Cows" commercials, where the government propagandized (outside of judicial control) that California dairy cows are happy. Given all of the problems associated with the production, distribution and consumption of meat, I find it unfathomable that the government is trying to manipulate us to eat more of it.

UPDATE: Marty makes some other good points.

Catching illegal hunters in the act can pose some unique challenges. The solution? Robotic animals that act as irresistible targets for the illegal hunters. According to the story:

Poachers aren't easy quarry, yet more and more law enforcement officials are nabbing them with a special kind of game that just begs to be shot… something like a young deer with an impressive rack of antlers, standing peacefully along a country road.

After a while, a truck drives by, stops, then backs up. The deer turns its head towards the vehicle, and a rifle barrel emerges from the driver's window. A shot breaks the silence. As the ricochet dies away, two game wardens leap from the brush, surprising the poacher. "Game warden!" they yell, "Put the gun on the ground, put the gun on the ground!"

The story says that the decoys are cost-effective; the $1,300 cost is made up by fines from arrests. One decoy in Wisconsin single-handedly has been responsible for 15 busts.

According to the Washington Post, kids with high IQs are more likely to become vegetarian than those with lower IQs. The article says: "Vegetarians were more likely to be female, of higher social class and better educated, but IQ was still a significant predictor of being vegetarian after adjustment for these factors."

You may recall that I've blogged several times about SaveToby, the site that threatened to kill and eat Toby the cute rabbit if people didn't donate a total of $50,000. People went bonkers about the threat to a bunny (as opposed to livestock). Then, Toby's owners changed their story, saying that they required people to buy 100,000 copies of their book by Thanksgiving or Toby would get it.

It's hard to know if these fraudsters have ever told the truth, but surprise! Toby allegedly is still alive. (And, I'm reasonably confident, they didn't sell 100,000 copies of their book). According to their website (as of today):

Toby Has Finally Been Saved!!!!!

News Flash - In an unexpected twist with the story of Toby, the rabbit that was going to be cooked and eaten if the owners did not get enough donations to stop it from happening, Bored.com has taken over the SaveToby.com website and saved Toby from certain death. The owner of Bored.com heard about Toby on the NBC Nightly News and read about the controversy in the many newspapers and magazines savetoby.com was featured in over the past year, and decided to put an end to this atrocity. Terms of the deal are undisclosed, but Toby has been quoted as saying he is very happy with the arrangement.

Other than the joy of saving a cute and loving animal from a cruel demise, Bored.com gets nothing out of this, so please show your support by visiting some of their websites:

Unexpected? Hardly. I predicted in January: "the hucksters won't sell 100,000 copies of their book (who the heck is buying this book anyway?), yet miraculously Toby will find a way to survive the latest pratfall." And so, Toby lives (allegedly).

Meanwhile, from Bored.com's perspective, this is a straight traffic acquisition. SaveToby.com has a PR6 and presumably still generates significant traffic, so Bored.com probably paid the cash value of the new ad inventory. As a result, I don't advise visiting SaveToby.com. If you go, watch out for the multiple pop-up ads, and clicking on the text ads (such as the casino links) probably isn't a good idea.

In any case, with Toby putatively no longer in the frying pan (literally or figuratively), I close the book on this saga. Live long, Toby, and may your parsley always be fresh. As for Toby's owners, I suspect karma isn't through with them yet.

Some observant Jews are suing Vienna Beef Hot Dog for extensively marketing that they are 100% beef (and, thus, acceptable for some Jews to eat, even if the hot dogs aren't otherwise strictly kosher), even though allegedly the wholesale ingredients list discloses that the ingredients include pork casing. As a vegetarian, I HATE undisclosed ingredients! My recommendation: next time, skip the meaty hot dogs altogether and go for the tofu dogs.

You may recall that last year I blogged on a website called Eathufu.com, which offered tofu designed to taste like human flesh. At the time, I wondered if this was just a big joke. Now, a year and a half later, there are some people who believe it may have just been a scam. The Eathufu website is down (according to Wikipedia, it's been down since the summer 2006), and apparently there are unhappy customers. According to the Wikipedia entry, "At present, no confirmed or reliable claims can be found of anyone's having received Hufu purchased via the company's home page."

Vermillion County, Indiana, population 17,000, is located in the country's heartland along the Illinois border. It seems like an unlikely place to worry about homeland security. However, the county has a chemical depot that could be a terrorist target, so the Department of Homeland Security spent $300,000 to build a network of 11 emergency alert signs.

But obviously these signs aren't used very often by DHS, so why not find some other uses for them in the downtime? Like, for advertising! Sure beats one of those boring roadside signs "Litter Picked Up By..."

So far, the lucky advertisers include a local elementary school promoting its carnival, sponsors of a spaghetti dinner fundraiser(both of which reported above-average turnouts) and the fire department advertising its fish fry. Then again, maybe it is fitting to use the emergency alert system to warn of the massive destruction of fish!

An article in the Yale Law & Policy Review, Saving Toby: Extortion, Blackmail, and the Right to Destroy, discusses SaveToby.com, a perennial topic on this blog. The author argues that the law doesn't adequately inhibit threats on a bunny's life. In response, the author proposes a new crime of "extortionate destruction." Would I be a criminal if I threatened to start eating burgers and bratwursts unless I get $50,000 by the end of the year? Meanwhile, I continue to reiterate my call to Toby's owners to eat the damn rabbit already--before more trees get killed!

If you want to read more, the author posts a third party critique of the article and further defenses of it. In that post, the author lets us in on the fact that the article was written "with tongue at least partly in cheek." That was news to me! Given that the article was a critique of a gag website, I would think the author would know firsthand the difficulty of communicating humor (or, even harder, partial humor) in written form.

The abstract:

On the website SaveToby.com, one may find many endearing pictures of Toby, the cutest little bunny on the planet. Unfortunately, on June 30, 2005, the lovable Toby was scheduled to be butchered and eaten - unless the website's readers sent $50,000 to save his life.

Though Toby's owner has since granted him a temporary reprieve - until Nov. 6, 2006 - the threat raises a fascinating issue of law. Extortion statutes prohibiting threats to destroy property generally do not prohibit threats to destroy one's own property. The law thus provides insufficient protection to a variety of resources on which others place value, including historic buildings, treasured paintings, and adorable bunny rabbits.

This Comment proposes that legislatures protect Toby under a new criminal offense of extortionate destruction. It presents the moral case for the offense by analogy to blackmail. Although destruction of property, like telling others' secrets, is normally lawful, both can be rendered wrongful by the unjustified use of a coercive threat. Such a threat specifically aims at causing unpleasantness to the offeree; the owner commits to killing Toby only because he hopes someone else will pay him not to. Such threats cannot be defended by the economic or expressive values inherent in the traditional right to destroy, and shed light on the ongoing debate over the nature and wrongness of blackmail. The Comment concludes by suggesting model statutory language designed to safeguard property owners' legitimate interests, while appropriately protecting future artworks, antiquities, and bunny rabbits from Toby's sad fate.

I maintain a page on being a vegetarian in Milwaukee. On that page, I discuss a local natural foods grocery chain, the Outpost, and the eagerly-anticipated arrival of Whole Foods. I wrote: "When Whole Foods gets here, I don’t know how the Outpost is going to successfully compete" because the Outpost is very expensive and Whole Foods has such a strong brand.

In response, I got an email from Lisa Malmarowski, Director of Brand and Store Development of the Outpost Natural Foods Cooperative. With her permission, I'm quoting her response:

____________

"I really wanted to communicate with you personally about your question regarding how Outpost will compete with the national chain Whole Foods moving into our market.

It's no secret that Whole Foods has been looking for a site in the Milwaukee area for more than 10 years. During that time, we haven't been content to rest on our cooperative, community owned laurels. We've been actively improving our operations, opening new locations and striving to lower prices without compromising quality.

Outpost currently employes more than 350 people, we're a UFCW union workplace too (unlike Whole Foods), we expect to net more than 22 million in sales from our three locations, magazine operations and catering division this year and we're co-owned by nearly 13,000 area residents. We're not going anywhere! We're in a stable position, ready to compete - not just with the nationals, but also with places like Pick N' Save, Sendik's and other strong regional players.

We are also connected with other food cooperatives across the nation via the National Cooperative Grocers Association. Co-ops nationally are second only to Whole Foods in their buying power and are still viable, vibrant businesses. For example, the Riverwest Co-op is one of many new co-ops that have opened across the country.

We plan to compete by offering a unique shopping experience, a fast in an out trip and excellent customer service. The Milwaukee grocery market has become increasingly competitive in the last 5 years with new grocery stores opening (Sendik's expansion), the Public Market, Pick N' Save's new locations and others. Yet we have still grown.

In other markets with strong cooperative groceries where Whole Foods has opened, these stores have survived and thrived, sometimes seeing an initial nominal drop in sales, but then a sales increase. Whole Foods positions themselves to compete w/ big stores, especially those that feature gourmet, fresh selections. They also do a great job of increasing awareness for natural foods and savvy retailers can draft off this awareness.

Hopefully you've stuck with me through my marketing discussion. What you said struck a cord in me and reminded me of that famous quote by Mark Twain, "The rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated.” We'll do okay, and even Beans & Barley will do okay, because the main part of their business is the service restaurant. Sure, folks will check out the new places, but I imagine that many Milwaukeeans will want to continue to patronize the places that make and keep Milwaukee unique - that's a position that Whole Foods can't own since they're a national chain."

_______

I think it would be great if Whole Foods has a tentpole effect of stimulating demand for natural foods across-the-board. At the same time, while Milwaukee isn't California, there's a lot more options for the natural foods consumer than we imagined there would be. Not only are there venerable institutions like the Outpost and Beans & Barley, but as Lisa says, there has been an expansion in the market, such as the new Riverwest Co-Op, the new Public Market (which is terrific, BTW) and the expansion of Sendik's. The market has gotten noticeably richer in the past 4 years, even without the arrival of Whole Foods. In any case, Milwaukee is lucky to have the Outpost, and I hope it continues to thrive.

Thanks for your detailed and thoughtful response, Lisa. And good luck to you and the Outpost!

A fire engine squad in Austin, TX has gone vegan. I think it's amazing that this news item makes the NY Times. It shows just how deeply meat is ingrained in many American subcultures (including firefighters). Kudos to the crew of Engine #2--I'd be proud to have them working on my tax dollars.

Cass Sunstein and Jeffrey Leslie weigh in on animal cruelty and the market for meat in the new article Animal Rights without Controversy. Predictably, they favor a disclosure-based scheme as a regulatory control, but they punt on the optimal types of disclosure.

Though I am normally cynical about mandatory disclosure schemes, this one may have merit. Unquestionably, there is widespread deliberate ignorance about "how the sausage gets made," and greater understanding of the process could significantly influence social attitudes towards meat.

I'll go one step further than Leslie/Sunstein and suggest a specific disclosure approach. Meat manufacturers should be required to display the animal's name, picture and date and method of death on the product packaging. The label could say: "This is Bessie. Here's a picture of her. She was killed by a piston to the head on March 27, 2006." As we saw with the (over)reaction to SaveToby.com, many people freak out when they visualize their meat as an individual animal.

However, instead (or in addition to) a disclosure scheme, I think it would be even more powerful to eliminate the variety of subsidies in the meat manufacturing, distribution and retailing chain. People may or may not care about the size of pig stalls or the debeaking process, but they absolutely care about their pocketbooks and the availability of cheap meat. Put an end to cheap meat, and lots of animal suffering will end as well.

The Leslie/Sunstein abstract:

"Many consumers would be willing to pay something to reduce the suffering of animals used as food. The problem is that existing markets do not disclose the relevant treatment of animals, even though that treatment would trouble many consumers. Steps should be taken to promote disclosure, so as to fortify market processes and to promote democratic discussion of the treatment of animals. In the context of animal welfare, a serious problem is that people’s practices ensure outcomes that defy their existing moral commitments. A disclosure regime could improve animal welfare without making it necessary to resolve the most deeply contested questions in this domain."

Atlanta is one of my least-favorite big cities to visit because of the paucity of vegetarian options. Even food that ought to be vegetarian is usually spiked with meat. Not infrequently, I'll hear from restaurant servers comments like "Yes, [X] is vegetarian--there's just a little [pig product] in it for flavoring." (I'm always fascinated by how many Southerners think of pig as a vegetable.)

So it was very surprising to read that Grady High School in Atlanta is one of the few high schools in the country to offer a vegetarian lunch line in its cafeteria. Among the offerings: veggie eggrolls, pasta salad, vegetarian pizza and--get this--sloppy joes made with tofu!

Further, the article notes how many meat-eaters "jump the line" to the vegetarian options. I'm not really surprised by this; instead, I am constantly surprised by how many restaurants don't offer a "real" vegetarian option or do so only as a clear after-thought. I think many meat-eaters will voluntarily choose vegetarian options when restaurants take those options seriously.

You may recall the pathetic tale of SaveToby.com. I blogged on it previously here and here. A short recap: two uproariously funny dudes threatened to eat cute Toby the Rabbit unless we do what they want--initially, pay $50,000 by June 30, 2005; now, buy 100,000 copies of their side-splittingly funny book by November 2006 (one place on the website says Nov. 6; another place says Thanksgiving).

I'm not sure if these charlatans have ever told us the truth, but at least they did deliver on one promise--they published their book about Toby. You can buy it on Amazon for $10, but why would you do that? If you absolutely, positively have to read the book, make sure to BUY IT USED so that the charlatans don't get another cent. (You can find used copies on Half.com and Amazon).

This likely will be my second-to-last posting about Save Toby. My last posting will be in November 2006 when I check in to see what happened. Here's my prediction: the hucksters won't sell 100,000 copies of their book (who the heck is buying this book anyway?), yet miraculously Toby will find a way to survive the latest pratfall. After all, I seem to recall a fable about killing the golden goose...er, golden rabbit... Then again, don't be surprised if November 2006 brings yet another new peril to Toby's well-being.

Meanwhile, read this expose on SaveToby and the copycats who lack both humor and originality.

Finally, the SaveToby story inspired my contracts exam question this year. Check out the fun my students had.

I don't think meat-eaters fully appreciate how many Thanksgiving rituals revolve around the bird. The turkey determines when dinner is served. The turkey occupies the center of the table. The head of the household displays his or her carving excellence in cutting the turkey. Everyone fights over the wishbone. The turkey causes everyone to be sleepy after the meal. And then we talk about turkey leftovers for weeks afterwards.

Vegetarians often feel excluded from these rituals, so Thanksgiving often has different connotations for vegetarians. However, I'm not suggesting that meat-eaters shouldn't enjoy their turkey-related rituals. On the contrary, let me suggest three ways that meat-eaters can accommodate vegetarian guests like me at Thanksgiving:

1) Please don't do anything special for me. It breaks my heart when someone invites me to their home for Thanksgiving, cooks up a storm, and then feels like they have to something extra just for me. The ironic part is that there is always so much vegetarian food at the table that I don't need more. So don't fret about whether I've had enough to eat. I prefer not to be the center of attention, and as my expanding spare tire attests, I rarely go hungry.

2) Please give me accurate information about which dishes I can eat. Many Thanksgiving recipes unexpectedly contain meat, so I often don't know what dishes I can and can't eat. A quick narration of dishes helps immensely. But sometimes the narrator doesn't understand what on my verboten list; if in doubt, this should be discussed.

3) Please don't feel guilty about enjoying your rituals. The last thing I want to do is undermine the experience for you.

I'm often surprised how much the food distracts from the spiritual aspect of Thanksgiving. To me, Thanksgiving is about realizing how blessed we are and sharing that realization and the experience with loved ones. If this happens, I have a wonderful Thanksgiving regardless of who eats what.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

This kind of stuff drives vegetarians crazy. Wholesale price of turkeys: $0.70/lb or more. Retail price of turkeys during Thanksgiving: $0.39/lb. The reason: grocery stores subsidize turkey sales as a loss leader to increase traffic.

I don't have a problem with people eating turkey on Thanksgiving (or at other times) so long as they pay the true social cost of turkeys. But if meat prices reflected true social costs, people would eat a lot less meat. Instead, subsidies and incomplete cost accounting throughout the manufacturing, distribution and retail chain lead to meat prices well below its true social cost. In turn, underpricing leads to overproduction and overconsumption of turkeys and other meats. So cheap turkey prices makes for an artificially happy Thanksgiving for eaters (and definitely not for turkeys).

Meanwhile, we've been reading "Twas the Night Before Thanksgiving" to Jacob. I'm not sure the ultimate conclusion makes sense (I wouldn't want a live turkey in my house), but it's a seasonally-topical yet vegetarian-friendly book.

UPDATE: Reuters talks about the heritage turkey phenomenon, where people can watch a webcam of free-range turkeys frolic before meeting the ax. I wonder why this website is treated differently than the SaveToby.com website?

eBay Britain removed an auction offering the right to bag a specifically-identified "21 point farmed master stag," which is probably a "semi-tame" deer. eBay responded to a complaint from an animal rights activist group about the auction, even though print periodicals regularly run similar ads--the only difference being that the eBay auction specificially identified the target with a photo. eBay's rationale? Advertising to kill a live animal violated eBay's policy against auctioning live animals. This rationale is a joke--the point of the live animals auction ban is that the shipment of animals is heavily regulated and, in the case of certain types of animals like ferrets, sometimes outright illegal. As the article points out, there's nothing illegal about advertising a hunt.

So what's eBay's real reason, and what's causing the animal rights group to target eBay and not the print publications? I see strong analogies to the silliness over the Toby the Rabbit extortion flap and the irrational dichotomy between Internet hunting (bad) and physical-space hunting (tolerated). In all cases, the Internet appears to be clouding clear thinking. What is it about the Internet mediation that makes killing animals worse than the offline analogues???

I've lost track of most state initiatives to outlaw Internet hunting, but this article from Michael Gormley at the Associated Press caught my attention because of all of the rhetorical posturing/intellectual dishonesty. Consider the following quotes:

NY Gov. George Pataki: "Hunters play an important role in environmental conservation, but these remote hunting games serve no useful purpose."

[Eric's comment: it would be great to unpack how hunters play an important role in environmental conservation. Note, of course, that offline hunters are allowed to hunt on game farms just like online hunters. Also, I wonder why providing physically-challenged individuals the opportunity to engage in hunting isn't a "useful purpose."]

Sen. Carl Marcellino: "The practice of making road kill out of living animals via the information superhighway should be stopped now."

[Eric's comment: there are many ways to riff on this quote, but I think it speaks for itself.]

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm: "Using computer technology to shoot at caged animals from a distance is a corruption of our proud hunting traditions."

[Eric's comment: who said anything about caged animals? Maybe she thinks of game farms with potentially thousands of acres as a "cage"...but offline hunting is legal there too. Also, what makes our hunting tradition "proud"?]

One final point: the "safety" concerns about Internet hunting are a joke. Which one gives you more concern?

* a controlled access game farm where a mounted gun is monitored by a real person who can override any commands from the hunter (as is the case with Live-shot.com), or

* arming thousands of people--who might have limited gun safety training and who may be drinking while hunting--and setting them loose to blast at anything that moves (even if it's wearing an orange blaze vest).

Consider some empirical data.

FWIW, I simply will not go hiking in Wisconsin during deer hunting season. I don't consider it safe regardless of any precautions I might take. As a result, if we're really concerned about hunting safety, I think Internet hunting would not be our top priority.

Mark Matthews of Stateline.org has written a good (and pointed) update on the efforts to ban Internet hunting. He contacted me based on my San Jose Mercury News editorial on the topic.

VegNews is running its annual survey of the best of vegetarian products and services.

I voted for Native Foods (LA, Palm Springs, Palm Desert) as the best vegetarian restaurant. I was torn because I also cannot get enough of A Votre Sante (Brentwood; not purely vegetarian). When I travel to LA, I swing by A Votre Sante virtually every trip. But when I'm in Palm Springs, I make my trip almost daily. Honestly, I could eat at Native Foods for every meal.

[Addition: two other restaurants of note--Udupi Palace in Sunnyvale, a mandatory stop every time I'm in the South Bay, and Smart Alec's in Berkeley, another place I could eat at every day.]

I struggled with favorite vegetarian celebrity. There were many good choices! I admire Alicia Silverstone for her recent hard-core vegan wedding. Pamela Anderson has done positive high-profile work for PETA. Tobey Maguire is...well, he's Spiderman. They didn't even include Kelly Monaco on the list (I guess she was too low profile before Dancing with the Stars). But in the end, I voted for Natalie Portman. She's so classy!

I must confess to being shocked at the choices for best vegetarian cookbook author. Tanya's Native Foods cookbook is great (but complicated), so she was the best of the listed choices. But Nava Atlas' recipes are generally wonderful--where was she? And, even more critically, where was Mollie Katzen??? Mollie got my write-in vote.

UPDATE: The winners.

In Fall 2004, the Riverwest Co-op Grocery & Café (733 E. Clarke St., Milwaukee, WI 53212, (414) 264-7933) quietly launched an all-vegetarian café next to its grocery store (which is located in the Riverwest district, an eclectic and somewhat dilapidated part of East Milwaukee). This is an exciting addition to the vegetarian community in town, and early reports suggest that the café is popular.

The menu isn’t huge and the hours are spotty (you should call ahead to check hours), but we enjoyed our meals on our first visit. Virtually every menu item can be made vegan, and prices are extremely reasonable (the most expensive item on the menu is $6.00). We especially liked the vegan pancakes—they were decently fluffy, and it was impossible to tell that they were vegan.

There are only 3 ramshackle tables at the restaurant, so you will probably want (need?) to take your meal to-go. While you’re waiting for your meal, you can check out the tiny selection of groceries at the co-op; you’ll have better selection at the Outpost or Beans & Barley, but the co-op’s offerings still are a welcome contribution to the community.

If you're interested in more about the Milwaukee vegetarian scene, I've completely updated my list of vegetarian/vegetarian-friendly restaurants in Milwaukee.

A New Zealand restaurant offers "Mr. Ed is Dead," a meal made from char-grilled horse steaks. The restaurant received a number of complaining calls that were "pretty lively and disgusting and not comforting for the staff." Nevertheless, the restaurant sold 10 horse-steak dinners in one evening, going to show that people will eat just about anything.

UPDATE: Ever the curious researcher, I learned a new word today: "hippophagy," or the practice of eating horse. This article does a pretty good job talking through the pros and cons of hippophagy. As the article says, "So we’ll eat Bambi, but we won’t eat Trigger?"

You may remember the silly story of Toby, a cute bunny featured on the website SaveToby.com. The owners threatened to kill and eat Toby if they did not get $50,000 in donations by June 30. I'm sure you're as shocked as I am that (a) the extortionists didn't get their $50,000, yet (b) Toby is safe, at least for now. The charlatans blame their shortfall on PayPal for blackballing them, but they decided not to devour Toby yet despite the shortfall.

Meanwhile, showing their typical enterprising spirit, they have found a new extortion scheme. They promise to release a funny book and will spare Toby's life if you buy their book. (So far, no specifics on how many copies need to be sold (and by when) to save Toby). They promise the book by September, but their (minimal) credibility is already spent.

Here's my counterproposal to them: eat the damn rabbit already, and spare all of us from having to see your book. I think that would be a better outcome for all of us (except Toby).

Karin Robertson, manager of PETA's "Fish Empathy Project," has asked the Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach, CA to stop serving fish in its cafeteria.. She claims "serving fish at an aquarium is like serving poodle burgers at a dog show" and notes that "they don't sell elephant burgers at the zoo, and they shouldn't be selling fish at aquariums."

For me, this raises several questions:

* I wonder how many people would eagerly try a poodle burger or an elephant burger, whether served at a dog show, a zoo or somewhere else? I've given up underestimating Americans' appetite for burgers.
* What professional development steps must a person take to get a job working at the Fish Empathy Project? I assume that most people are unaware of this as a career option.
* If the Aquarium does not have a whales exhibit, would PETA be OK if they served whale burgers?

Unfortunately, the Aquarium of the Pacific has declined PETA's request, continuing to offer clam chowder, rainbow trout, catfish, tilapia and salmon.

The Wisconsin Senate has passed AB 179, the anti-Internet hunting law that had previously passed the Assembly. The law is going to Gov. Doyle, who has said he plans to sign it (although he thinks cat hunting is a bad idea). I have nothing good to say about this law, and I have an editorial in the works that takes aim (sorry for the pun) at those who think that this law is either important or a good idea. I've posted on this topic previously--start here and work backwards.