Blogversation Series - Animal Advocacy Strategies - Paul Shapiro's Statement

**UPDATED** at 7:30 pm, 1/27


Paul Shapiro, Senior Director of HSUS’s Factory Farming Campaign: “The trend is clear: battery cages for egg-laying hens are being relegated to the dustbin of history faster than anyone would have imagined. We must be careful, however, in describing the campaign to the public to put forward a truthful message. Cage-free is a factual statement that describes the hens’ housing – simply that these birds are not confined in cages. It’s one thing to state that not using battery eggs helps reduce animal suffering and is a move in the right direction. It’s another to claim that cage-free eggs are by definition ‘cruelty-free.’”

Gary:

I'm going to start by generally pointing out where I agree, and follow with some constructive criticism.

Strictly speaking, I concur with everything Paul said. Abolishing battery cages - the example he used - is indeed an improvement for hens. I cannot imagine the unending pain and despair from being locked in a box my whole life, in which I could never raise my arms, and in which I was forced to stand, sit, and sleep on metal grates. So freeing hens from that life-long torture, and getting the public to not only refuse to support that cruelty but to ban it - first at the company and college level and now possibly at the state level - is certainly a step in the right direction. For the first time in decades, the trend toward more and more intensive confinement of farmed animals is being reversed.

I also agree that "cage-free" is an accurate term. Exaggerated phrases like "happy meat" are used by opponents of reform. And of course the animal agriculture industry promotes all its meat, dairy, and eggs as "happy." However, it should be noted that HSUS and other organizations that have engaged in reform campaigns sometimes use words like "humane" and "compassionate" to describe their initiatives.

Because the public in general is so vested in eating animal products (and perhaps because they are bombarded with positive images and reinforcement of animal product consumption), I believe they're predisposed to see reform measures with rose-colored glasses and that their strong tendency is to convince themselves that eating meat, dairy, and eggs is ok. Therefore I think we have an obligation to present the unvarnished and rather bleak truth about what "cage-free" means for most hens. In the vast majority of circumstances, cage-free hens are still crowded into filthy sheds by the thousands or tens of thousands. Through intensive breeding and environmental manipulation they are forced to lay up to ten times their normal number of eggs - which takes an enormous toll on their bodies. They may be debeaked. Their diet and surroundings offer them virtually no joy and scant opportunity to engage in a natural lifestyle. Male chicks and unwanted hens are killed by brutal methods, including suffocation and being ground up alive. Cage-free hens still suffer their whole lives and both they and the male "by-products" of the egg industry are horribly exploited.

I believe HSUS can explain these disturbing realities in ways that will not result in them losing their audience. As Paul and other animal activists have pointed out, practically everyone deep down is opposed to animal cruelty and does not want to cause avoidable suffering. Yet, at the same time, they willingly contribute to avoidable animal cruelty and suffering. People unfortunately often do things that they know are wrong - out of habit, social pressure, ignorance, simply being vested in a particular lifestyle, defiance when they feel their activity choices are being attacked, and for other reasons. A large part of animal activism is helping people act in accordance with their basic morals. HSUS and other organizations are doing this in a step-wise fashion when they convince consumers to stop buying eggs from battery cages. But I believe those same techniques can be used in a much broader sense, to educate the public on cruelties that are practically endemic to animal agriculture and to spur the public to reconsider the whole premise of creating animals merely to exploit and kill them - particularly in this day and age in which alternatives are abundant.

Paul and other HSUS employees working on farmed animal reforms are long-time ethical vegans who are dedicated to bringing about a compassionate and just world that includes veganism and the eradication of animal exploitation. That is my distinct impression from meeting them and talking with them on numerous occasions over the last several years. They are quite eloquent when publicly explaining the horrors of battery cages, veal crates, and gestation crates, and I have no doubt that they could be just as effective in educating the public about male chick-killing in hen hatcheries, the severe violence and suffering in slaughterhouses, and other forms of brutality inflicted on animals throughout the animal agriculture industry. In conjunction with those efforts - since it is important to provide one's advocacy audience with solutions that they see as doable and achievable - HSUS could greatly expand its literature, online information, and outreach programs to show people how to reduce their intake of animal products and replace them with healthy, satisfying vegan choices. They do this to some degree already, and I'm excited about the ongoing significant expansion of their online vegan recipes, but I'd like to see them make this broader, "striking at the roots" type of advocacy more front-and-center in their outreach strategies. I think the time is right and that they have the talent, resources, and moral conviction in their workforce to pull it off magnificently.


Kim:

The situation of the hens’ confinement in battery cages was probably the most compelling reason for my converting to veganism. I recognized rather quickly that these particular animals suffered the most horribly, for the longest period of time. And that it was a priority to remove them from these cages above all other issues I came across regarding animal exploitation. But at the same time, I found it encouraging that many working to end this practice were optimistic that this was a practice that would come to an end fairly soon.

If that was the case, it was proof to me that a small number of individuals can make changes on behalf of animals. And I wanted to join in the process.

I was never under any illusion that removing hens from cages was going to be the final assault on their exploitation; only a matter of relieving them from this particular torture. While it may be possible to house hens in less crowded situations than most “cage-free” operations provide now - and we may have to begin demanding better “cage-free” conditions once the cages are completely eliminated industry wide, as the next step - eliminating the exploitation of hens for their bodily secretions is the ultimate goal.

But how do we get from Point A to Point B? Is it realistic that a group unable to speak on its own behalf will obtain freedom from exploitation without gradualism? How long will pure vegan advocacy take to eliminate eggs from society’s diet? How long is long to a hen suffering every second in a wire cage, never seeing daylight or spreading her wings, throughout her abbreviated life?

It’s at least been proven that the public responded to learning about the realities of caged hens and that the industry then responded to their concerns - for whatever reasons. So at the very least, we have some evidence that this kind of education campaign has “an” effect - regardless of what one thinks about the level of significance. (All I can do is assume any respite from a wire cage is of significance to the hens.)


Personally, I’m not willing to gamble with the current suffering of hens in exchange for unproven theory about strategies, when I can see that this kind of incremental advocacy is proven to at least shift attitudes. And perhaps even result in better cage-free conditions - in the next phase - while we work toward widespread veganism and abolition. Of course I would like HSUS and other groups to take a more defined position on veganism, and make sure they aren't leaving the impression that cage-free is acceptable as a final goal, but I also understand that this kind of change may require a different approach until the public is in a position to embrace what they now perceive as an inconceivable notion - life without eating animals. While vegan advocacy may not be at the forefront of their activities - like it is for Gary and I - I see their position as a complement to my activism, not as a hindrance.


[Gary didn't have a chance to add some comments he wanted to about the California Ballot Initiative being sponsored by HSUS, Farm Sanctuary and other organizations, so I am going to provide a link on his behalf. I feel the initiative goes a long way toward bringing awareness to the public about the conditions of animals on factory farms and will hopefully result in eliminating some of the worst conditions for animals. I also see the potential such an initiative brings to provide the momentum necessary to introduce veganism as an option, once it becomes clear to many new to this information that "humane exploitation" is an oxymoron, and that even the closest "ideal" for animals will never be profitable, affordable, sustainable or humane. Again, I don't see such reform efforts as an end point (although their impact on attitudes can be seen as "victories"), but as a necessary component to changing entrenched perceptions, when combined with vegan advocacy.]


**UPDATE FROM GARY**:

Although my outreach is overwhelmingly vegan-oriented, and I gently but firmly push people to go farther than merely refining their animal product intake - I ask them to replace animal consumption with animal compassion - I would encourage all California residents to sign the petition to add the "Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act" to the November 2008 ballot in that state. Details are at the link Kim provided. (Yes, the title of the initiative is over the top, but then so are the titles of so many legislative reform measures.)

The Act, if passed, would affect tens of millions of animal in one fell swoop. It would provide some rudiments of normalcy - e.g., being able to stand on solid ground and dust-bathe - to laying hens. Similar provisions would be given to breeding sows and veal calves.

There is an implied rights element to this legislation: Animals have a right not to be confined in tiny cages, therefore the practice should be outlawed. When exploited victims' legal status is raised, the public has a tendency to give those victims more respect. By raising the issue of farmed animal cruelty in a highly visible way, and incrementally strengthening farmed animal laws, the California ballot initiative reflects as well as aids the public's gradual acknowledgment of farmed animals' interests.

Granted, the measure leaves many horrific cruelties - as well as the overall exploitative business model - intact. Nonetheless it sends a signal to the animal agriculture industry that consumers are starting to reject practices that they tacitly accepted only a few years ago. And they are voting against those practices on moral grounds. If we can deepen and expand that concern, and transform it into substantial lifestyle changes - such as transitioning to a vegan diet - that spells doom for animal agriculture.

As pattrice jones has pointed out, we can put the "squeeze play" on the animal exploitation industry: Increasing restrictions on their business practices, raising their costs, and lowering demand for their products. Vegan activism plays a vital role in achieving these results. Let's leverage people's awareness and moral concerns and show them healthy, satisfying, and non-violent alternatives.




Our next post will discuss the statement of UPC Conference participant Roberta Schiff, President of Mid-Hudson Vegetarian Society in New York.

Blogversation Series - Animal Advocacy Strategies - Introduction

Please welcome Gary from Animal Writings, who will be joining me in a series of posts - a Blogversation, if you will - inspired by our upcoming attendance at the 8th annual United Poultry Concerns (UPC) Conference in Norfolk, VA at the end of March. This year the conference will examine the pros and cons of reform measures as an animal advocacy strategy.


Gary:

Thanks to Kim for letting me participate in this joint blog series.

This will be my fourth UPC conference. I highly recommend them. They are small enough to be intimate and to allow everyone to contribute. By exploring a single topic, they get past superficial headlines and bullet points and into very interesting and thought-provoking inquiries. The level of conversation and discourse is always top-notch; the speakers are respectful toward both the audience and each other and never insult the listeners' intelligence. There is a great feeling of camaraderie and plenty of opportunity to network and form friendships. The UPC forum is an ideal venue in which to discuss complicated and emotional topics. I have always felt that in past conferences I came away more informed and more appreciative of the nuances of various positions.

Kim:

Gary suggested that in advance of the conference, we could respond to the brief position statements submitted by each of the upcoming UPC forum speakers. I agreed that this would make for an interesting conversation that readers might enjoy. Our aim is not simply to agree or disagree with the speakers - although we may do some of both - but to express thoughts and reactions that may be triggered by each of the statements. We'll share them with you, and bounce them off each other, and see where it goes.

Gary:

We want to say upfront that we recognize the totality of each speaker's perspectives on animal advocacy strategy cannot be summed up in a paragraph. And we realize that each of the speaker's statements is merely one small sliver of their views on the subject. In addition, we acknowledge that each of these speakers is a tireless and dedicated activist who has worked for years if not decades on furthering the causes of animal protection, animal rights, reducing animal suffering, and bringing about a world in which our relationship with animals is based on compassion, respect, communion, and justice. We, and more importantly the animals, are indebted to their efforts.

Kim:

In our first post, to follow shortly, we'll start by discussing Paul Shapiro's statement. Then, in subsequent posts, we'll work our way through each participant's statements and end with Karen Davis.

We hope many of you will join in the conversation!

Dick Cheney Eats Kittens

I saw this bumper sticker the other day and it made me laugh... for quite a while. It was one of those things you aren't expecting, so it made it all the more amusing - implying something about the target by utilizing the absurd (in our society, anyway).

But then I got to thinking, it wouldn't have been funny if it said "Dick Cheney eats cows (or pigs, or chickens, etc.)" Which makes a statement about how we place companion animals in a different category than farmed animals. And how sad it is that most of our society doesn't find eating them absurd at all!

In another post, when I'm not so bogged down with work, I'd like to talk about our different perceptions, and treatment, of animals we place in specific categories, and how this effects our animal advocacy efforts.

Part 2: Vegetarians - Since when are animal excretions plant-based foods?

So, if you are a vegetarian for ethical reasons, chances are you have been exposed to the horrors of factory farmed dairy cows and hens at some point. In the age of internet access and message boards, it's unlikely that anyone participating can escape discussions that include these facts. Yet, there remains a significant number of self-proclaimed ethical vegetarians online (who have been "vegetarians" for years) that continue to consume dairy and eggs. Somehow the compassion stops short -and whatever factor triggered their initial objection to slaughtering animals for flesh, is put aside in order to ignore the suffering and slaughter of milk and egg-producing animals.

I find that very strange.

Because once I understood that dairy cows and egg-laying hens suffer in much worse conditions for longer periods of time, only to be slaughtered when they are no longer "productive", any social obstacles, inconvenience, habits and addictions became immediately irrelevant. There was no way I was going to be part of a system that tortured and killed animals. Period. That was my moral baseline, without compromise for any perceived personal inconvenience.

Now I'm not saying there isn't a natural rationalization defense that kicks in for most people who have been brainwashed from birth to accept "societal norms", when faced with contrary information. But once you work through that, and discover what you're supporting when you purchase dairy and eggs, I can't see how people can continue justifying their decisions - when they proclaim to be against harming or killing animals for food.

I think it's great that some people consume much less animal products than they once did. But what I don't understand is when that is as far as their compassion will go. What stops most people from progressing to the total elimination of animal products? Why do they stop midway?

Whenever people try to hide their animal-product meals from me, perhaps mentioning that just my witnessing their behavior makes them feel guilty, I remind them that it has nothing to do with me - that it's between them, and the animals. The animals are the only ones they have to answer to. If they can't convince animals they should willingly suffer and die for their tastebuds, they shouldn't be paying someone to torture and kill them on their behalf.

It really is that simple. And "vegetarians", especially, should get that.

PART 1 - Vegetarians: Since when are animal excretions plant-based foods?

You know, I'm not usually someone who gets hung up on labels, but this irks me. It's bad enough that people who eat fish flesh for instance, but not the flesh of other animals, fail to recognize that fish are animals too and still call themselves vegetarians. Totally not vegetarian.

But at what point did "vegetarian" come to include the excretions of animals, like milk and eggs? Any basic definition of vegetarian (when referring to humans, whereas the term "herbivore" would be a comparable description for other animals) is someone who eats a plant-based diet, consisting of grains, fruits and vegetables.

I don't know where, along the way, the term became modified to include animal-produced items. All I know is it is innaccurate and inclusive where it shouldn't be. And in ways other than regarding the ingestion of non-plant based foods. If you eat animal excretions, you are still participating in the torture and slaughter of animals. In fact, eating a cow or a chicken is a far less horrific act than keeping her alive for her milk or eggs. The main difference is that they are kept alive in more horrible circumstances for a longer period of time, before being brutally trucked and slaughtered.

Now I know there are many people who avoid specific forms of animal flesh for health reasons, with little concern for the animals' well being. Clearly if you are eating any flesh, you shouldn't refer to yourself as a vegetarian. But what about "vegetarians" that are avoiding flesh for ethical reasons? How do they justify avoiding one form of torture while continuing to participate in another?

Lately I've seen lots of discussions that include apprehensions about the difficulties people fear they will encounter in social or work situations if they tried to avoid dairy and eggs. I'm not saying that it's not a reality of modern life that these products are all around, being consumed by our peers. But at what point does peer-pressure override personal values? How can convenience and acceptance trump compassion, ethics and morals?

Please feel free to weigh in on this and I'll continue this in a later post....

Peace for All....

...Humankind's ultimate New Year's Resolution.



Artwork by: Neva Davis

Happy Compassionate New Year!