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.