Animal rights group to visit new downtown Dallas McDonald’s on Wednesday

Welcome to the neighborhood!

DALLAS — Donning aprons and backed by a banner that declares, “Free Vegan Food Samples – Healthy, Cruelty-Free & Delicious,” members of the animal advocacy organization Mercy For Animals will greet customers of Dallas’ newest McDonald’s restaurant grand opening – dishing up free vegan “McMuffins,” served with a side of truth about McDonald’s’ cruel treatment of animals.

The protest will take place Wednesday, September 22 at 8 a.m. The new McDonald’s is at 440 N. Lamar St., Ste. 107A, at the corner of Pacific Ave. and Lamar St., in downtown Dallas.

Why the ruffled feathers? Far from receiving the kindness and respect accorded to most dogs and cats, the millions of cows, pigs, and chickens raised and killed for McDonald’s restaurants lead lives filled with misery. The green pastures and idyllic barnyard scenes of years past are now distant memories. On modern-day factory farms, animals are crammed by the thousands into filthy, windowless sheds, wire cages, metal crates, and other cruel confinement systems. These animals will never root in the soil, build nests, or do anything that is natural to them.

Eggs used in McMuffins come from hens crammed in wire cages so small the birds cannot spread their wings, walk, perch, or engage in other basic behaviors. Each egg-laying hen is given less living space than a notebook sized piece of paper.

Pigs killed for McDonald’s bacon are crowded into filthy sheds, where they are denied the ability to breathe fresh air, see sunlight, or feel the grass under their feet. Mother pigs spend their lives locked in tiny crates so small they cannot turn around or lie down comfortably. Baby piglets have their tails cut off, their teeth pulled and their testicles removed – all without anesthesia.

Animals on factory farms have little to no legal protection. Cruelty that would be illegal if it were inflicted on dogs or cats, such as neglect, mutilation, transport through all weather extremes, and gruesome and violent slaughter, is commonplace in animal agribusiness.

“There is nothing happy about the meals served at McDonald’s,” says Eddie Garza, MFA’s Texas campaign coordinator. “Before being turned into McNuggets or Big Macs, animals killed for McDonald’s restaurants are crammed into filthy, stinking cages where they cannot turn around or spread their limbs, are mutilated without painkillers, and are violently snapped into shackles and have their throats slit, often while fully conscious, at the slaughterhouse.”

Source: Mercy For Animals

Russ Vandeveerdonk, verified:

OK wow. It is sad but a reality check,.how else are we to eat, 1/3 of the world is already starving. How are we to sustain jobs so we can again feed our own families and work to pay our bills. Albeit an honorable cause, justice for animals etc,. etc, there is no real solution. A temporary and humane solution, but then what?

2 years, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

Pavel Lishin, verified:

Russ, what? Are you saying that the only option for us to feed ourselves is meat?

There's a book out supporting that, actually - properly done, farming meat can indeed be almost as efficient, calorie-wise, as going pure veggie.

2 years, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

sstalnaker, anonymous:

Even without going down the vegan route there are ways these animals could be treated fairly and with a decent amount of morality before killing them for us to eat...let them live as they are intended to live. Outside with plenty of room to run around and act like the animals they are. they should be allowed to see sunlight, feel grass, walk around. these are basic rights all living creatures on this planet are deserving of. the current treatment of these animals is downright cruel and should be outlawed if we are ever to be considered a true civilization.

2 years, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

Pavel Lishin, verified:

Relevant: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfr...

2 years, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

Teresa Gubbins, staff:

and here is the handy rebuttal

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/r...

2 years, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

Pavel Lishin, verified:

I'm not sure I understand that rebuttal.

I'm not going to touch issue #1 because I'm not going to change anyone's mind, nor have mine changed, on the matter of whether eating critters is moral or not. Can't touch #2 either because I haven't read the book, either.

But #3 is confusing - "Animals are property; they are economic commodities. They have no inherent value. Animal welfare reforms provide very little protection to animal interests and If you looked at the history of animal welfare reforms, you would see that, for the most part, they do little beyond making animal production more economically efficient."

If you're in the arctic, your critters have a bunch of inherent value - it's the difference between living and dying. And saying that reforms have always sucked, and drawing the conclusion that therefore they will always suck is just retarded.

"Moreover, if consumers cared enough to pay the much higher costs that would be involved, they would probably care enough about animals as a moral matter not to eat them at all."

Flat out false. I don't want to see critters live a miserable life before being a delicious steak, so if I were able to afford it, I'd get free-range everything, etc., etc., but I certainly wouldn't think "gee, this chicken has a right to live, so I'm gonna be a vegan now." This is just another case of assuming there are only two options, and no middle ground.

"In any event, even if animal welfare standards increased dramatically, our treatment of animals would still represent torture if humans were involved. Water boarding someone on a padded board is marginally better than using an unpadded board but it is still torture."

A cow's life on a free-range pasture, getting to sit around and eat grass all day, and then being killed instantly and mercifully vs. the current system is not comparable to a padded waterboard vs regular waterboarding. Get the flock out of here with that argument, it's just a cheap rhetorical trick.

"There is no way to do animal agriculture in a way required to feed billions (even if they consumed fewer animal products) without inflicting torture on animals."

Maybe. I don't know how much land would be required for critters to run around, nor do I know what assumption they're making there on how much meat per meal we actually need. If everyone on the planet eats a steak every day, then yes, it's probably unrealistic. If we eat a chicken breast a few times a week, then I'd wager we could damn well raise enough bird meat to feed everyone.

2 years, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

OEsophagus, anonymous:

It is strange to argue that we have a moral obligation to prevent animal suffering and state that animals are are a commodity with no inherent value a few paragraphs later.

2 years, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

OEsophagus, anonymous:

It is also strange that over the last 100 years or so we've limited our meat intake to cows, pigs and chickens thanks to places like McDonalds and large-scale agribusiness.

2 years, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

DFW Diner, anonymous:

I think I'll have a steak for dinner and help support the economy while someone else deals with the obligations to provide rights for animals that are headed for slaughter. Have we really become so PC in the world today that we must be versed in the appropriate treatment of slaughterhouse animals? What's next, educating everyone on how our body waste is treated from the time we expel into the toilet and flush, until it returns to us in our tap water? Or how about we all get trained on what becomes of the trillions of tons of garbage we set out in our alleys or front curbs to be magically whisked away by convenient collection trucks. But I digress, and just being a smart * . ;-) It is a marvelous world to allow these great debates, but really can't we just all get along? Those of you who prefer not to eat meat, for whatever your reason, good for you. I support you fully in your viewpoint and applaud you for taking a stand. Those who like their meat, regardless how it came to be on their plate, great. I think you are equally as justified in your view and also applaud your position. Let's just agree to disagree and get on with our personal life preferences. We can meet over a cup of coffee and discuss real issues. This is not one of them imho. It is only news when someone makes enough noise about it.

2 years, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

DFW Diner, anonymous:

Oh, I forgot to note I read sometime back that plants can actually feel, and sense emotion. Would it be horrific to find out one day that we have been eating sentient beings, all this time thinking they were nothing more than mindless, non feeling "things" created for our consumption? Just a random thought.

2 years, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

Pavel Lishin, verified:

Let's just agree to disagree and get on with our personal life preferences.

Yeah, because that would be fun.

2 years, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

jtmbls, anonymous:

We should just eat politicians. No guilt there.

2 years, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

Vic Savelli, staff:

Let me interject this into the conversation... Much of the reported cruelty is not quite as bad as described. The article below gives a balanced review of feedlots.

www.precisionnutrition.com/cattle-fee...

2 years, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal