Regan also articulates his firm belief that ‘moral philosophy is no substitute for political action’, but insists, ‘still, it can make a contribution. Its currency is ideas’. This assertion was made many years ago in 1983. However, it appears that large sections of the animal advocacy movement was not (and is not) listening to this important message. Many factions in the modern animal protection movement do not agree that a well worked out philosophical position assists in the furtherance of altering the moral standing of nonhuman animals. Moreover, many of those that do seem to agree with the general point that social movements require a solid basis for claims-making, appear not to accept the case for animal rights in the first place. Recent developments in the animal movement tends to confirm such a view. For example, Francione [4] states that ‘the modern animal “rights” movement has explicitly rejected the doctrine of animal rights’. In fact, it might be tempting to claim, analogous to Gilroy’s [5] declaration that ‘there ain’t no black in the Union Jack’, that there ain’t much rights in ‘animal rights’ either. This tends to beg the question, if not rights violations, what do modern animal advocates substantially rely upon in order to make claims on behalf of nonhuman animals? Francione argues that the contemporary animal movement appears content to rely on a new formulation of traditional ideas, which he labels ‘new welfarism’. He describes this conception of new welfarism as a ‘hybrid position’ which may be understood to be a more progressive, or in Francione’s terms, a ‘modified’ welfare position compared with traditional animal welfarism, especially in the sense that this ‘version of animal welfare…accepts animal rights as an ideal state of affairs that can be achieved only through continued adherence to animal welfare measures’.
More on Milk By MARK BITTMAN Mark Bittman on food and all things related. TAGS: DAIRY, DIETS, MILK Not surprisingly, experiences like mine with dairy, outlined in my column of two weeks ago, are more common than unusual, at least according to the roughly 1,300 comments and e-mails we received since then. In them, people outlined their experiences with dairy and health problems as varied as heartburn, migraines, irritable bowel syndrome, colitis, eczema, acne, hives, asthma ("When I gave up dairy, my asthma went away completely"), gall bladder issues, body aches, ear infections, colic, "seasonal allergies," rhinitis, chronic sinus infections and more. (One writer mentioned an absence of canker sores after cutting dairy; I realized I hadn't had a canker sore - which I've gotten an average of once a month my whole life - in four months. Something else to think about.) Although lactose intolerance and its generalized digestive tract problems are well documented, and milk allergies are thought to affect perhaps 1 percent of the American population, the links between milk (or dairy) and such a broad range of ailments has not been well studied, at least by the medical establishment. RELATED Mark Bittman: Got Milk? You Don't Need It Yet if you speak with people who've had these kinds of reactive problems, it would appear that the medical establishment is among the last places you'd want to turn for advice. Nearly everyone who complained of heartburn, for example, later resolved by eliminating dairy, had a story of a doctor (usually a gastroenterologist) prescribing a proton pump inhibitor, or P.P.I., a drug (among the most prescribed in the United States) that blocks the production of acid in the stomach. But - like statins - P.P.I.s don't address underlying problems, nor are they "cures." They address only the symptom, not its cause, and they are only effective while the user takes them. Thus in the last few days I'
