Abolition and Farm Animals

Clementine

Clementine

At Farm Sanctuary, we’re able to spend time with chickens, pigs, turkeys, and cows who had been bred for meat, eggs, or milk. Every day, our interactions with them show us, again and again, that each of these animals is an individual, with intelligence and a unique personality. They form relationships with one another, and many of us have developed friendships with our residents.

DianaPais_SFarm animals are no different from the dogs or cats with whom many of us live. Each and every one of them yearns to love and live free, if only given the chance. Our advocacy for them takes many forms, but at the very core, our message is simple: turkeys, goats, pigs, chickens, cows, sheep, and ducks are friends, not food.

bondingsmThirty years ago, almost no one in the country thought about – let alone cared about – farm animals or how meat arrived on their plate. Now, we regularly see exposé on the brutality of factory farms, and at least half the country is open to the idea of changing their diet.

But at this time, it is a huge step from the norm – eating animals without a second thought – to fully embracing and acting on the view of “friends, not food.” And despite our movement’s many successes over the past three decades at promoting farm animals’ interests, we haven’t been very successful at increasing the number of people who don’t eat animals (in part because >80% of people who stop eating animals revert back). And even if we were to double the number of people who fully live according to “friends, not food,” the change would be hardly noticeable.

This is all the more surprising, given that Gallup consistently finds that more than 95% of Americans oppose cruelty to animals, and over half are specifically concerned about the treatment of farm animals. Fully a third think animals deserve the same rights as people!

Thus most people oppose cruelty to farm animals, but currently find it too difficult to completely change their diet and maintain that change. Combine these facts with our bottom-line concern for the suffering of every farm animal, and we can leverage people’s concern to abolish the worst abuses on factory farms (e.g., gestation crates, battery cages, veal crates, slaughter without stunning, and genetically-manipulated rapid growth).

Of course, this doesn’t mean we should end (or even lessen) our efforts to have more people recognize that farm animals are friends, not food. But working to abolish the worst barbarism farm animals suffer is actually complementary to efforts to help people live a fully compassionate life. For one, getting people to think about cruelty to farm animals and take an action (e.g., sign a petition, contact their representative) is a relatively easy step away from the status quo. Getting people to take the first step makes the next step easier and more likely. Research shows that asking for a small step is more likely to create change, and have that change be sustained.

Second, abolishing the worst aspects of factory farming makes meat, eggs, and dairy more expensive. Anything we can do to bend the supply/demand curve in this direction will lead to fewer animals suffering on factory farms.

Finally, if we truly care about every chicken, pig, cow, and turkey, we have to do our best for them, right now, with the world as it actually is. No matter what we do, there will be animals on factory farms tomorrow. And next year. And the next year. We are morally obligated to support any step that could reduce their suffering.

This is not to say we shouldn’t spend our limited personal or organizational time and resources promoting universal compassion. But abolishing the worst abuses in no way endorses or excuses raising and killing animals in a “less cruel” fashion.

Rather, we support the abolition of the worst forms of torture because we care about every single farm animal. Of course we won’t stop until everyone internalizes and acts upon the simple fact that these individuals are friends, not food. But instead of only talking about how we want the world to be in the future, we will look at how the world is for farm animals right now, and do our absolute best for them.

-Matt 

Yes, we CAN ask for less than “go vegan”

Another guest post from Tobias Leenaert.

An often heard crede – especially among so called “abolitionist” vegans – is that “veganism is the moral baseline”. It seems to mean that being vegan is the minimum we can do for the animals if we want to be moral creatures. Conversely, anything less than vegan is immoral behaviour. I don’t agree with that, and the way many activists use the sentence often seems quite ineffective and often condescending to me.

From idea that veganism is the moral baseline, it seems to follow (at least for those who adhere to the moral baseline motto) that our outreach towards omnivores can never be anything less than suggesting them to go vegan. Asking people to be reducetarians, for instance, would be an immoral demand, just like, believers hold, asking or demanding that a childbeater become a parttime childbeater rather than doing it every day (I have written about that before, here and here).

Let us assume for a minute that asking anything less than veganism is immoral (and that veganism is the moral baseline). Let us, however, at the same time assume – for the sake of the argument – that asking “things less than veganism” leads to a higher reduction of animal suffering and killing.What, in that case, should we prioritize: the morality of our outreach, or its impact? In other words, should we – again assuming for a minute that we know for sure – use a less effective message because we believe it to be a more moral one?

driving force

Those who would answer that the morality aspect is the most important, will often claim that the impact is actually on their side too, and that what is painted above is some kind of false dichotomy. I want to briefly examine here if that is true. In other words: is it possible that asking other things than “go vegan” is more effective in reducing animal suffering and killing?

People who follow this blog will know that my answer will be that that is definitely possible. I give three reasons why I think a smaller ask may (often) be more effective than the bigger, go vegan ask. I am not implying that everyone should do “reducitarian” outreach – more about that below.

One: bigger total impact
It seems to be common sense that when we ask people to do something easy, more of them will do it than when we ask them to do something hard. The difference between the small number of people doing the hard thing, and the higher number of people doing the easy thing is big enough, the people doing the easy thing may all together have a higher total impact. Say we ask one thousand people to go vegan and say we get ten of them to actually do so (it definitely is possible to go vegan overnight, no one is denying that). On the other hand, say that we ask another thousand people (our control group) to participate in Meatless Mondays, and say that 300 do so. You can do the math. One might object that the few people that were convinced become fulltime vegans might also become active in reaching out to others, but actually the same can be said about the meat reducers, who can also advocate for Meatless Monday.

Two: meat reducers may more easily become vegan
I believe our main challenge today is to get as many people as possible totake the first steps, to cross a certain treshold.That is in many cases one of the most important things we can help them do, because it is a lot easier to move up the vegan scale when you have made a first step. Being a reducetarian is not an end, but a beginning.

Three: meat reducers make veganism easier and may tip the system faster
Meat reducers are the driving force behind demand, and companies producing vegan products, do so in the first place for *them* and not for vegans. In other words, meat reducers help to make it easier for everyone to eat more and more vegan, or even to go vegan overnight.

These are three reasons – and in my upcoming book they will be better referenced – that could indicate that asking people to reduce might have a bigger impact than asking them to go vegan. One could argue that if this would be so, this demand would actually be the more moral one. After all,what’s moral about using a message that is less effective than one we know to be more effective?

Let me explicitly state my purpose in writing all this. I am not saying that our movement should never use the “go vegan” message. I *am* saying, conversely, that we are under no moral obligation to *always* use the “go vegan” message. And I am suggesting that those who think they should criticize people who do “less than vegan” outreach (be they vegans themselves or not) stop doing that.

Welfare reform and vegan advocacy: the facts

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.

 

Sources

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.