Open-Ended Turkey, Green Mountain College's 'Oxengate', and the Search for Food Sovereignty

Butterball, heritage, free-range, Tofurkey, cold turkey. Thanksgiving turkey just isn’t what it used to be.

Butterball, heritage, free-range, Tofurkey, cold turkey. Thanksgiving turkey just isn’t what it used to be—it’s a complex beast comprised of nearly as many cultural values as nutritional values. Not only does it not look or taste the same as it did on that first Thanksgiving, but it is now the centerpiece of holiday ethics discussions as much as it is the central dish on many American tables. That bodes well for reinvigorating our local food systems—as long as the discussions are not replaced by polemics and polarization.

If you’ve been reading the national media lately, you might have heard of Bill and Lou, a team of oxen that became the focus of a malicious animal rights campaign to save them from landing in our the Green Mountain College dining hall as hamburger. As animal rights activists laid siege upon our campus with assorted social media smear campaigns, a strategic cyber attack, and even video and photo surveillance, any hopes of civil and rational dialogue were immediately trumped by abusive harassment and vitriolic threats, not only to our college community but also to meat processors throughout our region.

Local food systems have been besieged over and over again throughout the past century, generally by large-scale business interests focused more on profit and efficiency than local economies and consumer health. We are finally beginning to wrest control of our food systems and rebuild our foodsheds. Part of that hard work involves confronting aspects of our food systems that many would rather ignore: food insecurity, food waste, impoverished farmworkers, and the realities of livestock agriculture.

In order to create just, sustainable, and humane food systems at the local level, respect for contrasting dietary choices is a prerequisite for coming to the table. Our re-envisioned foodsheds can easily accommodate vegans, vegetarians, and omnivores in ways that can develop diversified entrepreneurial opportunities that support all of these dietary choices. Slaughterhouses, charcuterie shops, orchards, vegetable CSAs, microbreweries, and soy manufacturers are all part of the mix. Healthy and resilient local food systems arise through diversity, not the dietary imperialism advocated by this small group of activists.

At Green Mountain College, we’re living examples of how a diverse community of eaters can embrace dialogue and mutual respect. Approximately 70 percent of our students choose to eat meat (often with great discretion as to its source) and 30 percent are vegetarians and vegans.

Yet for more than a decade, we have had numerous open discussions about the ethics and ecological considerations of different dietary perspectives, including a public forum to determine the fate of Bill and Lou—this frankness and shared purpose are among the greatest benefits of having an on-campus farm. If there's a common theme to our community discussions, it is that the most appropriate animal products for our college dining hall come from our own college farm, where students care for the animals and have a voice in determining their fate. Processing the animals in local facilities focused on humane handling helps to rebuild our regional livestock infrastructure while also allowing our students to see firsthand how these facilities can and should function.

Our community has taken the time to investigate and discuss the assumptions and realities of different dietary choices, and we have also tried to model clear thinking and mutual respect in our inevitable and enriching disagreements. Such discourse is at the heart of any community-based food system, a democratically oriented effort to chart a community’s best course in a complex food world. “Food sovereignty” is hard to come by in our industrialized global food system, so outside efforts to thwart a community’s careful decision-making processes seem misdirected, if not altogether unethical.

As our college community endured a month-long international cyber-onslaught regarding our decision about two eleven year-old oxen, approximately 3.9 million cattle were slaughtered in the U.S. in the same period, most of them with much shorter and less pleasant lives than Bill and Lou. The irony in it all is that these oxen were originally slated to go to a local, small-scale slaughterhouse that is certified as “Animal Welfare Approved,” and all of Vermont’s slaughterhouses have now received trained in humane handling and slaughter. One would think that animal rights activists would target large multinational corporations with slaughter facilities that process thousands of animals per day, not a small educational farm located in rural Vermont.

Any animal rights battle cry for the abolition of livestock agriculture flies in the face of social, cultural, and ecological realities. In contrast, animal welfare proponents are civilly and collaboratively working toward the transformation of livestock agriculture, ultimately resulting in better lives for animals and healthier diets for humans.

If our college community has learned anything in what we now wryly refer to as “Oxengate,” it is this: While we may not agree on whether to partake in eating Tom Turkey or on the last few seconds of his demise, we do agree on the critical importance of how he spent the entirety of his life. And we are more convinced than ever that a Thanksgiving dinner conversation that begins with an absolute is not a conversation.

Philip Ackerman-Leist, is the author Up Tunket Road and the forthcoming Rebuilding the Foodshed (Chelsea Green, 2013). He is a professor at Green Mountain College, where he established the college’s farm and sustainable agriculture curriculum and is director of the Green Mountain College Farm & Food Project.

GOOD is urging the community to resist the urge to volunteer around the holidays—the time of year when food banks and soup kitchens have more helping hands than they need. Join in volunteering smarter and commit to serving on a day when the need is far greater.

Photo via Flickr (cc) user Daniel Johnson.


Looking back, the year 1995 seems like such an innocent time. America was in the midst of its longest streak of peace and prosperity. September 11, 2001 was six years away, and the internet didn't seem like much more than a passing fad.

Twenty-four years ago, 18 million U.S. homes had modem-equipped computers, 7 million more than the year before. Most logged in through America Online where they got their email or communicated with random strangers in chat rooms.

According to a Pew Research study that year, only 32% of those who go online say they would miss it "a lot" if no longer available.

Imagine what those poll numbers would look like if the question was asked today.

RELATED: Bill and Melinda Gates had a surprising answer when asked about a 70 percent tax on the wealthiest Americans

"Few see online activities as essential to them, and no single online feature, with the exception of E-Mail, is used with any regularity," the Pew article said. "Consumers have yet to begin purchasing goods and services online, and there is little indication that online news features are changing traditional news consumption patterns."

"Late Night" host David Letterman had Microsoft founder and, at that time the richest man in the world, on his show for an interview in '95 to discuss the "the big new thing."

During the interview Letterman chided Gates about the usefulness of the new technology, comparing it to radio and tape recorders.

Gates seems excited by the internet because it will soon allow people to listen to a baseball game on their computer. To which Letterman smugly replies, "Does radio ring a bell?" to laughter from the crowd.

But Gates presses Letterman saying that the new technology allows you to listen to the game "whenever you want," to which Letterman responds, "Do tape recorders ring a bell?"

Gates then tells Letterman he can keep up with the latest in his favorite hobbies such as cigar smoking or race cars through the internet. Letterman shuts him down saying that he reads about his interests in magazines.

RELATED: Bill Gates has five books he thinks you should read this summer.

The discussion ends with the two laughing over meeting like-minded people in "troubled loner chat room on the internet."

The clip brings to mind a 1994 segment on "The Today Show" where host Bryant Gumbel and Katie Couric have a similar discussion.

"What is internet anyway?" an exasperated Gumball asks. "What do you write to it like mail?"

"It's a computer billboard but it's nationwide and it's several universities all joined together and it's getting bigger and bigger all the time," a producer explains from off-stage.

via The Howard Stern Show / YouTube

Former Secretary of State, first lady, and winner of the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton, sat own for an epic, two-and-a--half hour interview with Howard Stern on his SiriusXM show Wednesday.

She was there to promote "The Book of Gutsy Women," a book about heroic women co-written with her daughter, Chelsea Clinton.

In the far-reaching conversation, Clinton and the self-proclaimed "King of All Media" and, without a doubt, the best interviewer in America discussed everything from Donald Trump's inauguration to her sexuality.

Keep Reading Show less

The healthcare systems in the United States and the United Kingdom couldn't be more different.

The UK's National Health Service is the largest government-run healthcare system in the world and the US's is largest private sector system.

Almost all essential health services in the UK are free, whereas in America cost can vary wildly based on insurance, co pays and what the hospitals and physicians choose to charge.

A medical bill in the US

One of the largest differences is cost. The average person in the UK spends £2,989 ($3915) per year on healthcare (most of which is collected through taxes), whereas the average American spends around $10,739 a year.

So Americans should obviously be getting better care, right? Well, the average life expectancy in the UK is higher and infant mortality rate is lower than that in the US.

RELATED: The World Health Organization declares war on the out of control price of insulin

Plus, in the U.S., only 84% of people are covered by private insurance, Medicare or Medicaid. Sixteen percent of the population are forced to pay out of pocket.

In the UK, everyone is covered unless they are visiting the country or an undocumented resident.

Prescription drugs can cost Americans an arm and a leg, but in the UK, prescriptions or either free or capped at £8.60 ($11.27).

via Wikimedia Commons

The one drawback to the NHS system is responsiveness. In the UK people tend to wait longer for inessential surgeries, doctor's appointments, and in emergency rooms. Whereas, the US is ranked as the most responsive country in the world.

RELATED: Alarmingly high insulin prices are forcing Americans to flock to Canada to buy the drug

The New York Times printed a fair evaluation of the UK's system:

The service is known for its simplicity: It is free at the point of use to anyone who needs it. Paperwork is minimal, and most patients never see a bill. … No one needs to delay medical treatment until he or she can afford it, and virtually everyone is covered. …

According to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States spent 17.2 percent of its economic output on health care in 2016, compared with 9.7 percent in Britain. Yet Britain has a higher life expectancy at birth and lower infant mortality.

Citizens in each country have an interesting perspective on each other's healthcare systems. UK citizens think it's inhumane for Americans have to pay through the nose when they're sick or injured. While Americans are skeptical of socialist medicine.

A reporter from Politics Joe hit the streets of London and asked everyday people what they think Americans pay for healthcare and they were completely shocked.