The New York Times International - 30.08.2019

THE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL EDITION FRIDAY, AUGUST 30, 2019| 11

When Popeyes’ new fried chicken

sandwich went viral for its delicious-

ness last week, I did not pause, not

even for a second, to consider the vast

toll of suffering and environmental

destruction inherent in its rise. I am

guessing you didn’t either; indeed, I

can already feel your eyes rolling deep

into your head at the mere suggestion

that there’s anything to feel guilty

about regarding the sold-out sandwich.

So before we go on, let me warn you:

The rest of this column is going to give

your eye-rolling muscles a very good

workout.

You want to shake me: Shut up,

killjoy!Haven’t I heard how unspeak-

ably delicious the sandwich is? As The

New Yorker proclaimed, “The Popeyes

Chicken Sandwich Is Here to Save

America.” So why spoil this one last

true thing by mentioning the squalid,

overcrowded, constantly-lit, 40-day life

span of the typical factory-farmed,

fast-food chicken?

Or, for that matter, the irony of the

sandwich going viral at the same time

as heartbreaking pictures of the Ama-

zon rainforest on fire. Many of us,

myself included, engage in painless,

performative environmentalism. We’ll

give up plastic straws and tweet pas-

sionately that someone should do

something about the Amazon, yet few

of us make space in our worldview to

acknowledge the carcass in the room:

the irrefutable evidence that our addic-

tion to meat is killing the planet right

before our eyes. After all, it takes only

a few minutes of investigation to learn

that there is one overwhelming reason

the Amazon is burning — to clear

ground for cattle ranching and for the

cultivation of soy, the vast majority of

which goes not into tofu but into ani-

mal feed, including for fast-food

chicken.

As I say, I did not consider any of

this, because I don’t regularly come

into contact with a lot of preachy veg-

ans. Indeed, preachy vegans are some-

thing of a myth. There’s an old joke —

“How do you know you’re talking to a

vegan? Don’t worry, they’ll tell you” —

that is as untrue as it is revealing

about the teller. Although vegans can

marshal stronger evidence to support

their claims than adherents of many

other belief systems — whether of

other diets or major religions — they

get little respect, and their ideas rarely

receive mass media acknowledgment

other than mockery.

I am not a vegan. I

am barely, failingly, a

vegetarian/pescatar-

ian — I make an

effort to avoid meat,

but for reasons of

convenience and

shameless hedonism

still end up eating it

several times a

month, especially

fish. My purpose

here is not to change

how you eat, dress or

think about the

ethics of consuming

something like the Popeyes’ sandwich.

Instead, as a fellow omnivore and a

person concerned about the planet’s

future, I want to ask you to do some-

thing much more simple: to alter how

you think about vegans.

I want to urge you to give vegans a

chance — to love and to celebrate them

instead of ridiculing them. We need

more vegan voices, because on the big

issues — the criminal cruelty of indus-

trial farming; the sentience and emo-

tional depth of food animals; the envi-

ronmental toll of meat and the unsus-

tainability of its global rise — vegans

are irrefutably on the right side of

history. They are the vanguard. Cli-

mate scholars say that if we are ever to

survive a warming planet, people will

have to consume far fewer animals

than we do now. We will all have to

become a little more vegan — and if we

are to succeed in that, we will have to

start by saluting vegans, not mocking

them.

We are nowhere close to that now. In

the media, in pop culture and even in

progressive, enlightened polite society

it is still widely acceptable to make fun

of vegans. The stereotype of the smug,

self-satisfied, annoying vegan has

taken deep cultural root. One survey

found that vegans are viewed more

negatively than atheists and immi-

grants, and are only slightly more

tolerated than drug addicts.

It’s true that America’s food industry

has recently begun investing heavily in

animal-free milks and meats; super-

markets are brimming with bounties of

meat alternatives, Burger King is

selling an Impossible Whopper, and

KFC just announced fake fried chicken

wings and nuggets. This is all great

news for the planet, yet no one thanks

vegans for creating a market for these

alternatives. Not even the meat-alter-

native start-ups themselves, which call

themselves “plant-based” and strictly

avoid the V-word, perhaps because

food industry surveys find that “veg-

an” is the least appealing label that can

be applied to food — worse than “diet”

and “sugar-free.”

“There are many things that have

gotten better in the five years that I’ve

been vegan, like the availability of

options or the quality of vegan cheese

— but the attitude that omnivores have

about vegans doesn’t feel like it’s

changed that much, if at all,” Summer

Anne Burton, the editor of a new veg-

an-focused magazine called Tenderly,

told me. “Even people who are really

radical and progressive in lots of areas

of their lives still seem really suspi-

cious, frustrated and annoyed by the

idea of someone being vegan.”

The annoyance manifests in all kinds

of ways. Ms. Burton will post an inof-

fensive vegan recipe and someone will

invariably reply, “That would be better

with bacon!” Vegans are constantly

tarred with the suggestion that they

are unfun — they’re asked whether

oral sex is vegan, or accused of ruining

weddings and birthday dinners with

their outlandish preferences. “Being

vegan or talking about your reasons

for being vegan is taken to mean you

are judgmental and smug — ‘You must

be fun at parties!’ is probably the thing

that I hear most often,” Ms. Burton

said.

The tragedy here is that the mock-

ery intimidates vegans. Rather than

being out and proud about their beliefs,

vegans find themselves biting their

tongues. “A lot of us overcorrect,” Ms.

Burton said. “You make a sacrifice

because of your beliefs, and when

people ask you about it, you’re afraid to

sound judgmental or smug, so you

brush it off.”

There are many theories for why

vegans have it so rough, but the one I

lean on is guilt and cognitive disso-

nance. Many omnivores understand

the toll that meat wreaks on the planet,

and we can’t help but feel the tension

between loving animals in the abstract

while eating them with abandon on the

plate. All of this creates feelings of

defensiveness, so when a vegan comes

along, their very presence seems like

an affront. To an omnivore, every

vegan looks like a preachy vegan.

Well, that’s the point! As a culture,

we are far too comfortable with con-

suming animals. The idea that meat is

cost-free is exactly what led us into

this trap; delicious as it may be, we

should feel embarrassed and uncom-

fortable that people are going gaga for

a mass-manufactured fried chicken

sandwich.

For the good of the planet, put down

the sandwich. But if you won’t do that,

at least refrain from putting down the

people who are trying to light a path to

a livable future. The vegans are right.

The vegans were always right. The

least you can do is shower them with

respect and our gratitude, because

they deserve it.

Stop mocking vegans

Animal rights activists demonstrate during the Official Animal Rights March in Berlin this month.

SIPA, VIA ASSOCIATED PRESS

They’re right

about ethics

and the

environment.

If you won’t

join them, at

least respect

their effort

to build a

sustainable

future.

Farhad Manjoo

way possible.

Not because our wars are a good or

bad idea, but because, although not

everyone does the fighting, these wars

belong to all of us.

While I did choose to dedicate my

life to our common defense, I did not

and do not choose when and where to

go to war. Each time I went to war, it

was because my fellow Americans —

including engineers in Silicon Valley —

chose, through our democratic institu-

tions, to send me there.

Unlike militaries in authoritarian

regimes, the American military does

not decide to go to war or to kill people.

Civilian leaders in Congress, the White

House, and the Pentagon — who are

wholly accountable to the people of

this country — make that decision. It is

called common defense because it is

shared by all of us.

I think — well, hope, really — that

when tech workers protest working

with the military, it is because they are

opposed to the wars we have engaged

in, rather than because they are op-

posed to reducing suffering in warfare.

Drawing that distinction is hugely

important: Employees at Google,

Microsoft and other large tech compa-

nies who believe American wars are

unjust, imperialistic or otherwise

objectionable are in a strong position

to affect decisions about when and

where this country uses force. I would

encourage engagement on that front,

rather than handicapping our common

defense and increasing the danger to

those who provide it.

Five of the biggest six companies in

the world are United States tech com-

panies. With that size comes the oppor-

tunity — and ability — to influence; the

tech industry has a veritable army of

lobbyists in Washington. Instead of

pressuring their leadership to with-

draw support from the American serv-

ice member, tech workers could pres-

sure them to add the just application of

American power to their list of lobby-

ing efforts that includes retaining

extensive access to their fellow citi-

zens’ private data and tightening their

monopoly grip on the dissemination of

information.

That may come across a little sour,

but I believe that tech employees need

to take a good look in the mirror. Engi-

neers at tech platforms designed their

“engagement” algorithms in ways that

promoted extreme content and disin-

formation. Not only that, but the click-

bait algorithms and advertising strat-

egy of several of these tech platforms

have decimated institutional journal-

ism — the kind of

journalism that could

actually make a case

with the American

people against an

unjust war. I’m terri-

fied by how this

click-driven and

disinformation-prone

atmosphere they’ve

created will affect decision-making in a

crisis, and how it could lead us into an

ill-fated conflict.

Instead of promoting divisive con-

tent to drive interest, tech employees

could tweak their algorithms to gener-

ate comparative articles on the cost of

war when it makes sense. The next

time there is a salacious article about

political dogfighting over the impossi-

bility of finding $4.5 trillion to transi-

tion to a fully renewable electric grid

or $2 trillion to modernize infrastruc-

ture, the algorithm could pair it on a

landing platform with a report about

how the Iraq and Afghanistan wars

have cost $5.9 trillion so far and will

cost $8 trillion more in debt financing.

This would illustrate the opportunity

cost of going to war. Tech employees

can even submit their thoughts and

ideas on A.I. and national security to

the National Security Commission on

Artificial Intelligence, which is actively

seeking them right now!

Tech companies and their employees

have immense power and knowledge

in this country. Using those assets to

create a real discussion about when

America uses force would be a much

more enduring legacy than withhold-

ing technology that could enable the

men and women we throw unto the

breach to do their job in a way that

preserves innocent lives, their own

lives and their dignity.

LUCAS KUNCEis a Marine who served in

Iraq and Afghanistan.

The tech industry can make war safer

Ibelieve

that tech

employees

need to take

a good look

in the mirror.

KUNCE, FROM PAGE 10

opinion

In 1998 tobacco manufacturers reached an unprece-

dented agreement with 46 states, which had sued the

companies for engaging in decades of deceptive mar-

keting practices that contributed to an epidemic of

tobacco-related illness and death. Over the next 20

years, the industry paid some $125 billion to the states.

But two decades later, only a fraction of the tobacco

proceeds — less than 3 percent nationally in 2019 — has

been spent on public health matters related to tobacco

use. Today, no state finances tobacco control efforts at

the level that the Centers for Disease Control and Pre-

vention recommends.

The lessons of the tobacco experience are on health

officials’ minds this week, as a wave of legal cases in-

volving a similar public health nightmare starts pro-

ducing major payments.

On Monday, an Oklahoma judge found Johnson &

Johnson — which sells prescription opioids and sup-

plies other drug companies with opiate ingredients —

responsible for contributing to the state’s opioid crisis,

and ordered the company to pay $572 million. And on

Tuesday, it was reported that Purdue Pharma, which

manufactures OxyContin, and the Sackler family that

owns the company, are offering to settle thousands of

similar lawsuits with billions of dollars. Together, these

cases suggest that the entities that helped cause the

opioid crisis will finally be forced to help address it.

There’s a great deal to be done. Some 400,000 people

have died of opioid overdoses nationally over the past

two decades. The crisis also has taken a staggering toll

on the nation’s economy, costing an estimated $78.

billion a year in health care, lost productivity and in-

volvement by the criminal justice system, according to

the C.D.C.

The opioid industry has been quick to point out that

today’s overdose crisis is driven more by street drugs

like heroin and fentanyl than by prescription opioids

like OxyContin. And that’s true. But there’s no question

that this epidemic began with the rampant overpre-

scribing of those painkillers and that their overuse was

fueled, quite deliberately, by the pharmaceutical indus-

try’s efforts. As innumerable court documents and in-

vestigations have shown, opioid makers, including Pur-

due and Johnson & Johnson, routinely and knowingly

misled the public about their products. They played

down the risks of addiction, insisting that their drugs

were safe and, if anything, underutilized. And they

combated growing concerns with aggressive lobbying

and public relations campaigns.

These tactics contributed to sky-high levels of opioid

abuse, addiction and overdose. They led, almost di-

rectly, to the street drug problem that the nation is

confronting today. And they secured handsome profits

for opioid makers and suppliers.

So far, industry payouts have been meager compared

with opioid makers’ profits and with the cost of the

opioid crisis. The state of Oklahoma, for example, says

that it will need roughly $17 billion over the coming

decades to effectively combat the epidemic. This week’s

judgment against Johnson & Johnson, combined with

previous settlements with Purdue ($270 million) and

Teva Pharmaceuticals ($85 million), another opioid

maker, would cover only a few years of that effort.

And that’s only if the money is spent as it ought to be.

So far, more money from that Purdue settlement has

been allocated to litigation costs than to supplying com-

munities with anti-addiction medicine or to helping

local governments grapple with the direct costs of opi-

oid addiction and overdose. It remains to be seen if the

company’s latest proposal — to declare bankruptcy and

morph into a public trust whose profits would go di-

rectly to plaintiffs — will fare any better. Health officials

have long worried that any opioid settlement would

meet the same fate as the global tobacco settlement —

especially after some of the proceeds from early opioid

settlements in states like West Virginia were spent on

things unrelated to the crisis. As plaintiffs settle their

cases with drug makers, or as judges award damages,

they would do well to ensure that the resulting payouts

go directly to combating opioid addiction.

There is no shortage of options for doing so. Pro-

grams that increase access to methadone and

buprenorphine are urgently needed; right now fewer

than 20 percent of people struggling with opioid addic-

tion are being provided with such treatments, even

though they’re known to be lifesaving. Health depart-

ments also face a perpetual shortage of overdose rever-

sal drugs like naloxone, which can cost more than $

a dose. And funds would be well spent on efforts to

educate the public about and combat the stigma sur-

rounding addiction.

No amount of money will compensate for the lives

lost to opioid overdoses. But an investment commensu-

rate with the scale of that loss, directed responsibly,

could help countless others avoid that fate.

Money from

Johnson

&Johnson

and Purdue

Pharma could

make a big

difference —

but only if it

goes to the

right places.

MAKE THOSE OPIOID PAYMENTS COUNT

A.G. SULZBERGER,Publisher

DEAN BAQUET,Executive Editor
JOSEPH KAHN,Managing Editor
SUZANNE DALEY, Associate Editor

JAMES BENNET,Editorial Page Editor
JAMES DAO, Deputy Editorial Page Editor
KATHLEEN KINGSBURY, Deputy Editorial Page Editor

MARK THOMPSON,Chief Executive Officer

STEPHEN DUNBAR-JOHNSON,President, International

JEAN-CHRISTOPHE DEMARTA,Senior V.P., Global Advertising

CHARLOTTE GORDON, V.P., International Consumer Marketing

HELEN KONSTANTOPOULOS, V.P.,International Circulation

HELENA PHUA, Executive V.P., Asia-Pacific

SUZANNE YVERNÈS, International Chief Financial Officer

Printed inAthens, Denpasar, Beirut, Biratnagar, Doha, Dubai, Frankfurt, Gallargues, Helsinki, Hong Kong, Islamabad, Istanbul, Jakarta, Karachi, Kathmandu, Kuala Lumpur, Lahore, London, Luqa, Madrid, Manila, Milan, Nagoya, Nepalgunj, New York, Osaka, Paris, Rome, Seoul, Singapore, Sydney, Taipei, Tel Aviv, Tokyo.

The New York Times Company620 Eighth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10018-1405, NYTCo.com; The New York Times International Edition (ISSN: 2474-7149) is published six days per week. A.G. SULZBERGER, Publisher ©2019 The New York Times Company. All rights reserved. To submit an opinion article, email: [email protected], To

submit a letter to the editor, email: [email protected], Subscriptions: Subscribe.INYT.com, [email protected], Tel. +33 1 41 43 93 61, Advertising: NYTmediakit.com, [email protected], Tel.+33 1 41 43 94 07, Classifieds: [email protected], Tel. +44 20 7061 3534/3533, Regional Offices: U.K. 18

Museum Street, London WC1A 1JN, U.K., Tel. +44 20 7061 3500, Hong Kong1201 K.Wah Centre, 191 Java Road, North Point, Hong Kong, Tel: +852 2922 1188, DubaiPO Box 502015, Media City, Dubai UAE, Tel. +971 4428 9457 [email protected], FrancePostal Address: CS 10001, 92052 La Defense Cedex, France, Tel. +33 1 41 43

92 01, Commission Paritaire No. 0523 C83099. Printed in France by Paris Offset Print 30 Rue Raspail 93120 La Courneuve

RELEASED BY "What's News" vk.com/wsnws TELEGRAM: t.me/whatsnws

RELEASED

BY

"What's

News"

vk.com/wsnws

t.me/whatsnws