Talk, as prepared, for Madison, WI, and Chicago, IL, June 2016.
Let’s start with a pop quiz. How many vegans does it take to change a lightbulb?
Lightbulbs aren’t vegan!
For some of us, the question, “Can our choices make a difference?” seems silly. Of course our choices make a difference! A lot of people, though, think that in a world of seven billion people, what is actually silly is to think that one person’s choices can make a difference.
A good friend of mine, Jason Gaverick Matheny, wrote a scholarly analysis, Expected Utility, Contributory Causation, and Vegetarianism, that was published in a peer reviewed journal. In that paper, he lays out calculations that indicate our choices supposedly do make a difference.
However, I don’t know many people who choose what food to buy based on a utilitarian calculation of weighted probabilities and Bayes’ Theorem. For example, I stopped eating animals thirty years ago because I realized I couldn’t consider myself a good person if I was paying others to raise and butcher animals simply so I could enjoy a taste of flesh. Actually making a difference in the real world wasn’t a consideration.
This is a good example of my early days: I was concerned with being “right.”
I wanted to “win an argument with a meat eater.” I wanted to ridicule meat eaters. I wasn’t focused on actually changing the world, actually reducing the number of animals suffering.
Contrary to my approach then, Peter Singer took this question seriously in his book Animal Liberation. He was sympathetic to the idea that one person, acting in isolation, may very well not make a difference.
I can see this now. Even if we are the strictest vegan, some of our economic activity eventually pays the salaries of non-vegetarians, allowing them to buy more meat. In the end, the only way our food choices could have absolutely minimal negative impact would be if we didn’t exist.
So let’s set non-existence as our baseline.
Can we do better than that, in terms of making the world a better place?
Let me try to answer that by starting with some history.
When I stopped eating animals, I was simply angry.
As I said, I wanted to fight with meat eaters – attack and mock them. I obsessed and worried about abstractions and words and principles. I argued about exploitation, oppression, liberation.
The single most important lesson I’ve learned since then is that the irreducible heart of what matters is suffering. Back then, although I was sure I knew everything, I really didn’t know anything about suffering. Since then, though, I’ve developed a chronic disease, and experienced times when I thought I was going to die, times when I wished I would die.
Back in the mid-1980s, I didn’t take suffering seriously. Now, however, knowing what suffering really is, and knowing how much there is in the world, all my previous concerns seem – well, to put it kindly, silly.
Today, I realize that our individual day-to-day food choices matter very little compared to the impact we can potentially have with our example, our advocacy, and our donations.
So let me summarize, really quickly, a few facts and statistics from the past 30 years that can help us make a real, meaningful difference in the real world.
You’ve probably all seen this graph from Animal Charity Evaluators. I know you can’t see it clearly, but the take-away is that to a first approximation, every animal killed in the United States is a farm animal.
Compare that to this second graph, which shows where animal-related charitable donations go. Now, farm animals are the tiny sliver in the bottom right. In short, when trying to make a difference for animals, we’re working with one hand tied behind our backs, because resources are in no way allocated proportionally.
Not surprisingly, we’ve not done the best job.
Here we see the results of the Vegetarian Resource Group’s surveys of the last sixteen years (without error bars, which are huge). Although from within the vegan bubble, it can feel as though there are tons more vegans, the actual surveys of the actual population in the United States shows no clear growth in the percentage of the US population that is vegetarian. Or, to look at it on the appropriate scale:
In terms of meat consumption, it is even worse.
This graph shows per capita meat consumption in the US. While beef has declined, chicken consumption has more than doubled. Given how small birds are, this means many many more animals are dying every year, compared to when Peter Singer published Animal Liberation.
As an aside, I know we all have a much greater affinity for mammals than for birds.
But not only are chickens being killed in vastly greater numbers than cows or pigs, they are suffering absolute horrible cruelty.
Here is one more piece of bad news.
According to a number of surveys, including the most recent one by Faunalytics, the vast majority of people who go vegetarian or vegan eventually go back to eating animals. More than four out of every five individuals who go veg eventually quit!
It would be bad enough to realize that we’re throwing away more than 80% of advocacy efforts. But it is actually worse than that. Everyone who quits being veg becomes an anti–spokesperson against compassionate eating – a public (and often loud) example opposing taking any steps that help animals.
So with all that said, what do we know that might actually help us?
First is a graph from Ben Davidow.
This shows the relative number of animals harmed by the standard American diet. And you can see that the vast, vast majority of those animals are birds.
Looking at it a different way is this graph from Mark Middleton at AnimalVisuals, showing the number of deaths caused by producing a million calories of different food, including grains, vegetables, and fruits. Mark explicitly concludes, “Leaving chicken and eggs out of our diets will have the greatest effect on reducing the suffering and death caused by what we eat.”
Now I don’t want to just focus on death in and of itself. I would much rather be a field mouse living free until killed by a combine harvesting soybeans, compared to a chicken whose entire life is utter agony.
And I don’t mean that as hyperbole.
Harish Sethu of Counting Animals did an analysis of how many chickens actually suffer to death before making it to the slaughterhouse. These birds die of disease, or are killed because they aren’t growing quickly enough, or have their hearts just give out, or their legs break such that they can’t make it to water. Harish’s calculations show that so many chickens suffer to death that their number dwarfs all the animals killed for fur, in shelters, and in labs, combined. Again – this isn’t the number of chickens killed overall, just the number who suffer to death before even getting to slaughter.
The numbers are incredibly stark.
Again, based on research by Harish, Joe Espinosa notes that the average American consumes about two dozen land animals a year. If one person decided to give up eating birds – just birds – they go from being responsible for the deaths of over two dozen land animals a year to fewer than one. Fewer than one!
However, the converse is also true. Anything that might possibly lead someone to start to replace red meat with chickens will lead to a lot more suffering and killing, as noted by Ginny Messina:
Previously, we saw a graph that showed the number of chickens being slaughtered going way up.
But in recent years, this trend has reversed somewhat (upper right).
The decline might not seem like a lot, but given the size of birds and the numbers we were starting with, a small decline translates to many fewer animals suffering – hundreds of millions fewer.
So how does this specifically inform our advocacy?
I would love to say that the decline in the number of land animals killed in the US has been driven by a rise in the number of vegetarians and vegans.
However, as various researchers have pointed out, the change has actually been driven by meat reducers – people who are eating more meat-free meals, but aren’t (yet) vegetarian.
Turning to Faunalytics’ study on recidivism, their data shows that people who went veg for health reasons are the ones who go back to eating meat.
The single biggest difference in motivation between those who quit being vegetarian and those who stay vegetarian is: concern for animals (42% difference).
This is backed up by research by The Humane League Labs, which showed that concern for animals is what inspires lasting dietary change.
So clearly, we need to keep animals at the center of our efforts to help animals!
Research has also told us more about how we can refine our message in such a way as to get the most useful change for animals in the real world.
The Humane League Labs specifically pointed out that we should not focus on dairy when initially dealing with the general public. Not only because of the numbers, but because it is the last thing people think they can give up. Rather, we should focus on chickens, which people can give up and actually makes a significant difference in terms of the numbers of animals suffering. (Of course, this is absolutely not meant to dismiss or downplay the suffering of dairy cows and calves. Rather, this is simply a discussion of how best we can promote a message that will have the biggest possible impact in actually reducing suffering.)
This relates to research I was a part of in 2014 at the University of Arizona.
One of the many interesting take-aways from those four studies was that each one of them found that the general public thinks veganism is impossible, and vegans are, to put it kindly, annoying. This obviously doesn’t matter if we only want to promote veganism regardless of the consequences. But if we actually want to make a difference and reduce the amount of suffering in the world, we should take note of this.
Similarly, many people quit being vegetarian because they found it too hard to live up to the demand for purity.
Again, if we only care about the purity of those who call themselves vegan, then the fact that we’re driving people away is irrelevant. But if we actually want to reduce suffering, we should do everything possible to both embrace and encourage everyone…
…instead of reinforcing people’s stereotypes and trying to build the smallest, angriest, most exclusive club in the world.
The upside is that there is a great deal opportunity out there.
A number of surveys (including the University of Arizona study, quoted in the graphic above) have discovered a shocking willingness among the general population to reduce meat consumption.
And if we are really going to help animals, rather than just police our club, we can reach these members of the general public with an honest, realistic message that actually has a profound impact for animals – reducing and eliminating chickens from our diet.
How can we best do this?
I know this slide from the Humane League Labs is hard to read, but it shows that of the advocacy tools available to us, movies, conversations, websites, and online video have proven to be the most impactful.
Now I know this is a lot to take in in only a few minutes.
But I find it very encouraging to realize we have so much information available to us, such that we know what positive, constructive steps we can take to help change the world for animals.
Two last thoughts. The first is my absolute favorite quote from Gene Baur.
Even while building the world’s leading farm animal sanctuary, Gene was looking at what will be necessary to make sure that one day, as soon as possible, sanctuaries are no longer needed. We simply must go upstream and end the demand for animal products.
And finally a quick note as to why this matters.
For us here, we can debate and argue, philosophize and condemn. We’re all relatively safe and well off, enjoying our sparring and our agreements, our discussion about who’s attacking whom on Facebook, how angry we are about the latest tweet, how delicious the new vegan product is.
On the other hand, it is a cliche, of course, to say that this is a matter of gravest consequences for animals.
As much as I would love to think otherwise, we currently can’t do everything. We do not have infinite time, or infinite resources. But we have to realize that when we choose to do one thing, we are choosing not to do another. We need to choose wisely; we are the animals’ voice. We are their hope.
We can each strive to make choices that have the greatest possible impact, that reduce the most suffering, regardless of labels and definitions, regardless of how it makes us look or feel, regardless of popularity. We can make a real difference. We can change the world! Thank you.
By Nick Cooney
August 21, 2012
This week, a video blog post takes a data-based look at the impacts of farm animal welfare reforms. The powerpoint is excerpted from a plenary presentation given at the Animal Rights 2012 national conference.
Data Point 1: Welfare reforms reduce suffering and provide immediate good for animals
Note: the following white papers review the current research and cite dozens of peer-reviewed studies on the welfare of animals in different housing systems.
Shields, S., & Duncan, I. (n.d.). An HSUS report: A comparison of the welfare of hens in battery cages and alternative systems. Retrieved from http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/farm/hsus-a-comparison-of-the-welfare-of-hens-in-battery-cages-and-alternative-systems.pdf
The Humane Society of the United States. (2012, July). An HSUS report: Welfare issues with gestation crates for pregnant sows. Retrieved from http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/farm/HSUS-Report-on-Gestation-Crates-for-Pregnant-Sows.pdf
The Humane Society of the United States. (n.d.). An HSUS report: The welfare of intensively confined animals in battery cages, gestation crates, and veal crates. Retrieved from http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/farm/hsus-the-welfare-of-intensively-confined-animals.pdf
Data Point 2: The animal ag industry spends millions to oppose welfare reforms, because reforms are bad for the industry
Sethu, H. (2012, July 12). Look who is talking about animal welfare! [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://countinganimals.com/look-who-is-talking-animal-welfare/
Smith, R. (2011, December 28). Groups urge Congress to reject HSUS-UEP deal. Feedstuffs. Retrieved from http://fdsmagissues.feedstuffs.com/fds/PastIssues/FDS8401/fds04_8401.pdf
Data Point 3: Welfare reforms are followed by a reduction in consumption of the affected animal products
(2012, March 12). Egg prices set to rise after EU battery cage hen ban. BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17336478
(2012, March 13). Food price hike threatens egg sandwich. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/9140925/Food-price-hike-threatens-egg-sandwich.html
Cooney, N. (2012). European egg consumption and battery cage bans. Retrieved from http://ccc.farmsanctuary.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/European-Egg-Consumption-and-Battery-Cage-Bans.xls
Note: clicking the above link downloads the Microsoft Excel document to your computer; it does not open it in a new browser window.
Doward, J. (2012, August 11). Price of bacon set to soar as producers are hit by new EU animal welfare laws. The Observer. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/aug/12/price-of-bacon-to-soar
Sumner, D. A., et al. (2011, January). Economic and market issues on the sustainability of egg production in the United States: Analysis of alternative production systems. Poultry Science 90(1): 241-250. doi: 10.3382/ps.2010-00822. Retrieved from http://www.poultryscience.org/docs/PS_822.pdf
Note: while not mentioned in the video, the above study concludes that banning cages for egg-laying hens in the U.S. would reduce the number of hens raised (anywhere) for U.S. egg consumption by about 3%, meaning 8 million less hens would be raised and killed for egg consumption.
Data Point 4: Media coverage of animal welfare issues causes people to eat less meat
Tonsor, G., & N. Olynk. (2010, September). U.S. Meat Demand: The influence of animal welfare media coverage. Retrieved from http://www.agmanager.info/livestock/marketing/animalwelfare/MF2951.pdf
Tonsor, G., & Olynk, N. (2011). Impacts of Animal Well-Being and Welfare Media on Meat Demand. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62: 59–72. doi: 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2010.00266.x.
Data Point 5: Welfare reforms go hand in hand with decreased meat consumption
Note: for the first graph in this section, a law that bans both gestation crates and veal crates is represented as two practices being banned.
Meyer, S., & Steiner, L. (2011, December 20). Daily Livestock Report. Volume 9, No. 243. Retrieved from http://www.dailylivestockreport.com/documents/dlr 12-20-2011.pdf
Pichler, R., & Blackwell, G. (2007, February). How Many Veggies…? Retrieved from http://www.euroveg.eu/lang/dk/info/howmany.php
Sethu, H. (2012, July 12). Look who is talking about animal welfare! [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://countinganimals.com/look-who-is-talking-animal-welfare/
The Humane Society of the United States. (2012, July 23). Timeline of Major Farm Animal Protection Advancements. Retrieved from http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/confinement_farm/timelines/timeline_farm_animal_protection.html
Vegetarianism by country. (n.d.). Retrieved August 21, 2012 from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country
Data Point 6: People who make a small change become more likely to make a large change
Burger, J. “The Foot-In-The-Door Compliance Procedure: A Multiple-Process Analysis and Review.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 3.4 (1999): 303–325.
Cooney, N. (2011). Foot In The Door. In Change Of Heart: What Psychology Can Teach Us About Spreading Social Change (Chapter 5). Retrieved from http://changeofheartbook.com/e_foot.htm
Want to receive blog updates twice a month? Join the Compassionate Communities Campaign to get them delivered straight to your inbox.