Blogversation Series - Animal Advocacy Strategies - Robert Schiff's Statement

Roberta Schiff, President of Mid-Hudson Vegetarian Society in New York: “I know there are organizations who believe that making conditions for farmed animals somewhat less inhumane is the only thing possible given the voracious demand for meat, eggs, and milk. But two fast food chains agreeing to purchase a small percent of their flesh from animals treated with a bit less cruelty is hardly either exciting or a victory. It is a measured amount of progress, at best. Please let none of us do things or state things in such a way as to influence people to think these products have no price.”

Kim:

I don’t agree that most organizations think addressing conditions for farmed animals is “the only thing possible” - only one part of the equation. Given the fact that nothing activists do this second, short of illegal sabotage, is going to address the current suffering these animals face every second, if demanding change produces even a little “less cruelty” I find it significant, even if it isn’t “exciting” to us.

But I do agree that it is a form of “progress”. It’s progress in that attitudes are changing about consideration for farmed animals at all. It follows from the attitudinal shift regarding companion animals that has had some dramatic recent examples - from the animal issues that arose during Hurricane Katrina and the swift and clear outrage toward Michael Vick. Companion animal activism has been all about “welfare”. And we can see clear evidence that society has become less tolerant of companion animal abuse in conjunction with that focus, and that these attitude changes are having an impact on attitudes about “other” animals.

I haven’t personally seen evidence of activists portraying welfare as an end game solution, but I agree that we need to be upfront with the public about the inhumanity of any animal exploitation. But I find that the public’s own desire to keep eating animals creates a “wishful thinking” response to the notion of “humane exploitation” - they want to believe there is a way to keep eating animals that is humane and moral. When I hear such declarations about their choices being humane, I find it pretty easy to alter that perception with a little education that the exploiters fail to leave off.

I have seen the shattering of this wishful thinking before my eyes with just the offering of some information, which reinforces the need to make public education a priority. This doesn’t mean it is necessary to ignore the suffering of animals in factory farms, or that we are endorsing “humane farming” by demanding less cruel practices. It means that while the public is demanding animals be treated better, we break down the notion that we should be eating them at all. I see this as a powerful - and necessary - combination approach.


Gary:

I believe it's important for animal advocates to acknowledge all progress in dismantling animal exploitation, if for no other reason than it provides a hedge against burnout and despair, and may boost advocates' optimism, energy levels, and stamina in the long struggle.

"Victory" in common usage need not mean total victory. It can mean getting consumers or corporations to take an action that has a positive impact on animals, such as eliminating a particularly heinous torture.

To be sure, Burger King announcing that it will purchase two percent of its eggs from non-battery cage facilities - to take one example - is certainly not a "Yay, we did it," pumping-our-fists-in-the-air victory. In the grand scheme of animal rights, it is a barely measurable increment; any victory celebrations should be muted. Furthermore, such moves have a whiff of tokenism: A corporation that kills huge numbers of animals for profit every year does the minimum possible to claim "We care about animals" and then uses that as a marketing tool or a means of stifling protest.

But there may be more here than meets the eye, and several ways in which this seemingly minor move is significant:

-- Two percent of a huge number is a lot of eggs; a lot of hens who no longer have to live their lives in a tiny wire box. Granted, the hens are still abused in many ways and brutally killed. Their victim status is unaltered. But at least they get some of their lives back. They can flap their wings. They can stand and lie down on solid ground. Their claws don't slowly wrap around the wire grating, sometimes getting ripped off when they're pulled from their cages.

-- That Burger King did anything at all with respect to animal welfare is a sign that consumers are becoming more concerned about that issue. A decade ago, it's doubtful that HSUS or other animal groups would have had sufficient leverage to force any animal welfare concessions from fast food chains.

-- Two percent today can - and probably will - turn into 5 percent, then 10, 20 and so forth. Eventually, as cage-free changes from novel to the norm, there's no reason consumers will not demand additional animal welfare improvements, such as increased space for hens, no more de-beaking, and an end to male chick-killing. These changes may significantly raise costs for fast food chains and their suppliers. Combine that with the continued mainstreaming of vegetarian options and before long veggie chicken items on the menu start to look rather compelling to Burger King and other fast-food companies - especially for products such as patties and nuggets, in which the taste largely comes from breading, the filling is highly processed, and consumers most likely would not even notice the difference. Perhaps the positive flip side of people's tendency to mindlessly eat whatever is most readily available, tastes good, and fills them up is that they'll exhibit that same behavior regardless of whether the substrate of their sandwich filling comes from an animal or a plant.

-- Burger King's move puts pressure on their competition to do the same thing. In fact, HSUS and other animal groups play one company off the other.

When animal groups get companies to make changes in their policies, they are hastening the conversion of public opinion into corporate practices. Paradoxically, the vast majority of the population is opposed to battery cages, yet still buys eggs - directly and indirectly (through products that contain eggs) - from battery cage facilities. It's a strange zone: There's enough opposition to the practice to influence corporate policy a little but not too much. By making battery cage-sourced eggs unavailable or illegal, it forces consumers to stop perpetuating a particular cruelty to which they're morally opposed but which by and large they don't stop supporting on their own, perhaps out of laziness or general resistance to change. It's almost like "Please force me to make the change."

As important as it is to translate existing consumer opinion into corporate and government policy, it's ultimately even more important to influence public attitudes so that more substantial changes can be made in the future. That's why it's essential to ease the public's fears about giving up meat, to push the mainstreaming of vegan options, to inform the public of all the cruelties inherent in animal agriculture, and to educate (or remind) the public about the sentience and intrinsic worth of animals and thus our moral obligations toward them. I think that even when there is resistance to these topics, it is not terribly difficult to convey them and discuss them in ways that resonate with the public. So, yes, let's push companies to reflect emerging public opinion, but let's also use education and inspiration to expand people's consciousness and sense of right and wrong with regard to animals; let's advocate so that animals get the inclusion they deserve in individuals' and society's moral spheres.

Kim:

Of course I don't take anything a Burger King does at face value, but use the exercise as evidence that something is at least changing, even if it is perceptions. Is this the best use of HSUS's and PETA's time, to demand certain things from exploiters, however minimal they appear to be? It might be, as part of a greater effort to bring awareness to mainstream consumers who purchase meals at these fast-food places. It certainly is a big segment of the population that spends their money on fast-food.

Truthfully, I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about what each individual campaign means in terms of overall effect, but realize that different groups and individuals are naturally going to be drawn to different issues, using different methods. I don't believe there is any way to dictate strategy in an area where there are so many competing atrocities. Or that there is any way to measure what "victory" or "success" is at this point, when the goal is the elimination of exploitation. Anything that moves in that direction is progress - if it proves to change attitudes and removes some suffering immediately.

Gary:

The gradual elimination of battery cages, veal pens, gestation crates, and other forms of widespread, institutionalized torture is part of a campaign to decrease animal suffering as much as possible, as quickly as possible. Is concentrating on getting rid of cruelties that are already opposed by a majority of the public the best way to do that? That's a huge and complicated discussion, and I'm not sure there is any one best way, but the strategy seems rational to me, and striving to reduce suffering is a noble and urgent pursuit, even though animal rights and vegan outreach extends beyond reducing suffering.

One question that arises - which I think is valid - is: By incrementally improving conditions for farm animals, do we risk making consumers more comfortable with purchasing animal products? In my experience, the most complacent consumers of animal products are those who give no conscious thought to animal welfare and express no qualms about purchasing the cruelest factory farm products (out of ignorance or other reasons). The consistent pattern I see in my outreach is that omnivores who are buying cage-free eggs and, more generally, giving some consideration - however superficial - to animal welfare are much more conflicted about eating animal products and noticeably more open to vegan ideas. Then again, those personal experiences are what gets me thinking that if I can "talk vegan" to these folks and they listen rather than walk away, so can anyone and any group.

I do think that the way in which welfare reform campaigns are orchestrated can make a huge difference. I think advocates can and should leverage public opinion about animal welfare and animal rights to secure changes in corporate and government policies, thus giving some measure of relief to the unjust victims of exploitation, while at the same time being honest and open about the whole range of cruelties in animal exploitation, and discussing broad moral issues such as our obligation not to harm sentient beings if we can avoid it. If we've had trouble with the audience rejecting those messages in the past, let's put our heads together, look at failures and successes, and determine how we can best convey those far-reaching concepts. Maybe that's one of the things that will come out of the UPC conference.

Kim:

You know, I've read lots of the theories out there on the notion that addressing welfare somehow encourages people to eat more animals - or that it encourages them to go back to eating them. I just don't buy it. If anyone is swayed by the notion of "humane murder", they haven't embraced the ideals of veganism to begin with. They aren't there yet, but that doesn't mean further information won't make the difference in their compassion evolution.

Besides, if the worst case scenario is that we somehow have to advocate from a position of less cruel farming practices, how is that a bad thing, for the animals? (Although I don't see that truly happening on a wide scale, since it will quickly prove too costly and unsustainable to feed the public all the animals they demand within that model - bolstering the vegan argument.) There are so few of us out here willing to do vegan advocacy right now, that the notion that the animals can wait until we succesfully educate the masses is unrealistic. Eliminating the worst practices is not only the logical action, as we work to increase our ranks of vegan educators, but is also the compassionate course of action.