This is the final post in our Animal Advocacy Strategies Blogversation Series leading up to the UPC Conference this weekend. I feel well prepared now to discuss this topic at the conference and I'm sure Gary would agree with me that this has proved to be a worthy exercise.
I'll be posting a follow-up after the weekend to wrap everything up and report back on all the conference happenings.
Karen Davis, President of United Poultry Concerns: “If the public is told it can eat humanely raised and slaughtered animals, what incentive do people have to explore the range of delicious and nutritious vegan products on the market? Should animal advocates make it easier and more comfortable for people to consume meat, milk and eggs?”
Gary:
I agree: We don't want to give people the idea that it's acceptable to exploit and kill living beings for pleasure if it's done "humanely." We also don't want people to think that "cage-free" or "free-range" is humane. "Humane" is, among other things, refraining from exploitation.
At the same time, because the public is so deeply vested and addicted to eating animals (most people freak out at the concept of giving up meat, dairy, and eggs), we have an obligation, and are compelled by our compassion and kinship to other sentient beings, to give aid and comfort to the one trillion or more animals who will be unjustly imprisoned and killed until our society goes vegan. If we can end the worst tortures inflicted on them, and give them at least rudimentary opportunities to pursue happiness and engage in normal physical and social behaviors while they are wrongly incarcerated, and if we can do that without making the public more complacent about their exploitation, we should pursue that course of action with conviction.
That is the challenge: To end the exploitation of animals, and to ease the suffering of the innocent victims of that exploitation in the meantime. I believe we can and should try to accomplish both goals.
In my view, Karen Davis and UPC provide a model of how that may be done. UPC is unambiguous in its call for people to go vegan. Karen has authored many articles and books that describe the misery and wrongfulness of exploiting animals, and UPC offers abundant literature showing people how to prepare delicious animal-free meals. But Karen has also advocated for interim measures that would eliminate horrific tortures done to animals enslaved by the meat and egg industries. When she helped end forced starvation of laying hens, she played a role in reducing the suffering of perhaps billions of hens. But in no way was there any implication from Karen or UPC that hens would now be treated humanely, or that exploiting hens for their reproductive capabilities was in any way acceptable.
Perhaps in the UPC conference, we'll put our heads together and look at a panoply of approaches to cultivating compassion for animals, ending animal exploitation and cruelty, and giving relief to the current victims of those moral transgressions. I hope we will judge strategies with an open mind, and consider their respective virtues and positive potential as well as risks and limitations, and I hope we'll see how various tactics may work in synergy. (For example, I've personally seen people give up eggs after watching videos about the horror of battery cages, while other folks I know feel pangs of guilt after viewing such videos but don't change their egg-eating habits until they learn about male chick-killing or have serious discussions about the morality of and suffering caused by forcing hens to lay ten times more eggs than they would in the wild).
Often it takes a multitude of advocacy encounters before someone will have an "aha" moment, or modify their lifestyle. We don't know exactly what will cause the spark, or when, and I suspect that in most cases, the process of developing compassion and respect for animals and divesting from exploitative habits is cumulative and influenced by many experiences and outside points of view. It takes a village to raise awareness.
I hope that animal activists give each other the benefit of the doubt. We all are trying in earnest - and against formidable obstacles - to end human-caused animal suffering, abolish institutionalized animal exploitation, and create a world in which animals are treated with kindness and protected with justice. And I think we're making progress on all those fronts. I can see concrete as well as subtle signs that society is changing. It's a long and arduous yet ultimately glorious process. If we make sincere attempts to work cooperatively with each other, and give support and recognition to our fellow activists' efforts, I think that will help keep us sane and optimistic, enable us to be more creative, and increase our stamina in this "longest struggle." I'm looking forward to the conference and hope that as a participating attendee I can contribute in some way toward those lofty objectives.
Kim:
At this point, most people who are somewhat knowledgeable about factory farming are already aware of the "option" to purchase products from what they believe are more humanely raised animals. The "producers" seem to be doing a good job of promoting these notions to this group of consumers.
When I advocate to someone who is completely unaware of factory farming (just explaining where their food comes from tends to be new information), their immediate reaction is to seek out something less horrific. For the majority, their initial response isn't an instantaneous desire to stop eating animals and their excretions, but to rationalize a way to keep doing so without doing harm. (I know that's what I went through.)
I don't know many advocates that directly promote "humane" products. After being told that there is no "humane" alternative, most people still need the time to transition to the notion that they will no longer be participating in societal eating norms. So if they insist they cannot give up these products at this time, and they mention cage-free eggs, free-range beef or organic milk, most advocates I know will acknowledge that these options are better than the factory-farming alternative while explaining how complete avoidance is the only true humane option. In other words, the natural tendency to rationalize their behavior will lead them first to seek out something more "humane".
Can we stop farmers from selling these products or dismiss this option entirely when advocating? Or is the reality that until there are wholesale societal attitude changes, people will continue eating these things no matter what information we give them, so at least give the animals some relief? I tend to believe that is why some of the larger animal groups work with and support these "producers" - because the sooner we can get the animals out of the worst conditions imaginable, the better. As I've said before, I think it's a natural, inevitable progression - factory farming to "humane" farming to veganism. We should be telling people the facts while encouraging any changes in behavior (supporting reduction of consumption or "humane" options, with caveats).
In much the same way we ask people to spay and neuter companion animals, care for feral cat colonies or fight to enact companion animal legislation and abuse penalties, we can't ignore the suffering of the farmed animals, that are also the victims of being bred for profit, while we determine a way to put it to an end. Just because we don't take them into our homes, we can't dismiss the current conditions enforced by their oppressors. All animals - companion or otherwise - deserve the attention of their immediate "welfare" as we work to end the practices that landed them in their circumstances. Personally, my conscience won't allow anything else.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Blogversation Series - Animal Advocacy Strategies - Harold Brown's Statement
[Updated 3/20/08 at 9:00 p.m.]
Harold Brown, President of Farm Kind: “Ask yourself, ‘Why would any multinational corporation make a change that wasn’t going to be profitable?’ In my opinion, the move away from gestation crates for sows is designed to assuage the concerns of consumers. Granted, this is a slight improvement, but no one should call it a victory for the pigs or for the animal rights movement.”
Kim:
The real question to ask is why have the consumers started to have concerns about animal treatment? Did these corporations suddenly realize they weren't making a profit and decide to make costly changes to their operations in a vacuum?
Um, no.
Because of the impact of the animal advocacy movement, and the success of ongoing campaigns to educate the public on animal treatment, consumers are demanding (what they believe to be) animal products that came from "humanely" treated animals. So of course industry is going to react to the changing attitudes, instigated by the "movement", and adjust accordingly. And isn't this a natural first response by both the public and industries to this previously hidden information?
These industries fight very hard to keep the realities of their exploitation away from public view because it is cheaper and more profitable to disregard the suffering of the animals. (And changing "production" methods is a very costly intitial investment.) Now that their practices are being successfully exposed, did anyone think they were just going to close up shop, or that consumers were ready to give up their animal products?
The public wants to believe the myth that they can still consume animal products without causing suffering. Is it really plausible that most people, at this point, are ready to accept the notion that something they've been brainwashed about since receiving that first bottle of cow's milk, is immoral and unethical? That kind of ingrained, societal "norm" isn't something that can be overcome in one step; it obviously takes many. And the first step is getting people aware that animals are suffering at all. Thankfully, that appears to be where we are at now - finally at a point where enough consumers have been educated about the industry to be demanding changes.
So what's next? We continue the education. Advocate to a newly-aware public that there truly is no "humane" way to exploit another being for profit. It's time to accept that this current notion of "humane" animal products is the logical reaction by a society numbed by "tradition" and industrial influence. Becoming frustrated and angry at this reality doesn't move us forward, at best, and does nothing to help the animals, at worst.
Gary:
Why would a corporation do something that might cut into profits? Two major reasons are:
1) To comply with government mandates or revisions in the law;
2) To stay viable in the face of shifting consumer demand.
Both of these factors are forcing changes in the animal agriculture sector.
I want to focus first on the latter influence. When running a business, you either have to respond to changing customer demand or go belly-up. This is what I believe is the main cause of recent reforms in the animal agriculture industry.
Consumers now indicate more care about farmed animal's interests than they did five or ten years ago. It's insufficient, inconsistent, and unsteady to be sure; although I predict it will strengthen over time. In any event, the public is starting to no longer accept certain cruelties that have been standard practices in animal agriculture for decades. This is why companies are getting rid of gestation crates, veal pens, and battery cages. The market has begun to reject those practices. Companies - if they want to stay in business - have to respond to those concerns.
Furthermore, states are passing referendums banning these practices. And according to polls, the practices are being outlawed not because of parochial "not in my backyard" complaints but on ethical grounds. So producers can't simply relocate and solve the problem. They're being forced - if not mandated - to abolish certain procedures.
They're naturally worried about the trendline. Where does this newfound concern stop? Where does it lead? If we encompass vegan advocacy - educating people on animals' interests, conveying our obligation not to violate those interests whenever practically possible, and showing how one can have a diverse, peaceful, and deeply satisfying vegan diet - the concern will hopefully lead to the abolition of animal agriculture and other forms of institutionalized animal exploitation. And, I hope, far beyond that - to radically more kinship- and compassion-oriented worldviews.
But in the meantime, simply getting the public to feel the animals' pain, and to sympathize with animals as individuals is a huge start. It's already causing significant ripples in the animal agriculture industry, and opening the door for new and exciting vegetarian products and services.
Granted, the purveyors of animal exploitation are trying to leverage the situation foisted upon them to their advantage, by presenting their new improved animal flesh and secretion products as "humane." Of course, the meat, dairy, and egg industries have long sold their products of death and suffering as "happy," one way or another. "Happy meat" is nothing new. I believe this reaction by the industry is to be expected, and may be inevitable, regardless of which animal advocacy strategy is dominant. The animal-killing industry will naturally try to assuage consumers who are having second thoughts about meat by telling them that the animals are happy, as well as by tempting them with tantalizing photos and promotions, and making meat obsessively available. The industry is using its usual deceptions and tricks - and huge bankroll - in an attempt to prevent erosion of consumer demand and confidence. Though "happy meat" may seem on the surface to be merely a new marketing tactic, I think it is a defensive maneuver on the part of industry.
I see some consumers' desire to eat only "happy meat" as progress of a sort. Meat-eating is very much like an addiction in our society. Most people cannot conceive of giving it up. They have strong psychological and emotional attachments to it. They started eating meat before they can remember, and fear that life would be bleak without it, or that they might waste away without their daily meat fix - despite nearly irrefutable and abundant empirical evidence to the contrary. At the same time, more and more meat-eaters are begining to have conflicting feelings about eating animal flesh. They see images of animals suffering in factory farms and hear about horrid cruelties in slaughterhouses. So they take partial steps and make irrational but superficially satisfying deals with themselves: "I'll only buy free-range chickens" or "I'll only buy meat from family farms." This is roughly akin to the alcoholic saying "I'll only drink on the weekends."
The addicts are trying to convince themselves that their behavior is ok, as long as they make some minor modifications. This is insufficient, of course, but it's better than not admitting that there's any problems with their behavior. The dynamic on which advocates can capitalize is the growing number of meat-eaters who are trying - albeit with abundant denial and willful ignorance at this point - to reconcile their deep desire for meat with their emerging concern for animals' interests. At this early stage in their disengagement from their life-long habit, which is heavily promoted and enabled by society, meat-eaters are taking baby steps, and occasionally backsliding. But since they do feel some pangs of guilt now, we can show them that the "happy meat solution" is no solution at all, since there is cruelty and profound violation of animals' interests throughout animal agriculture, and there is a world of vegan foods that can make up a wonderfully satisfying, diverse, and healthy - and compassionate and non-violent - diet. And that the variety, accessibility, and quality of vegan products will expand greatly as more people give up animal products. The possibilities for fantastic animal-free diets, and the peace of mind that comes with that - which may lead to increased peace with others (human and nonhuman) - are magnificent.
I do agree that profit is a powerful and dominating feature of business in the capitalist world, and that some companies are obsessed with profit, even to the point of flagrantly violating basic morals if they get in the way of the bottom line. As I point out repeatedly in my one-on-one activism, profit is a driving force behind all the cruelties that are embedded in animal agriculture and other industries that use animals as tools. I almost always get quick and uncontested agreement on that. Love of money may not be the root of all evil, but it is often an accomplice to atrocities. In my personal outreach, I urge people not to be a part of such wrongdoing, and endeavor to show them the way out.
(Sidebar: I'm interested in digging deeper, and investigating the psychology and social pressures behind people's quest for money and power, which often fuels domination and exploitation. I plan to discuss - and maybe "blogverse" that topic in Animal Writings down the road.)
Harold Brown, President of Farm Kind: “Ask yourself, ‘Why would any multinational corporation make a change that wasn’t going to be profitable?’ In my opinion, the move away from gestation crates for sows is designed to assuage the concerns of consumers. Granted, this is a slight improvement, but no one should call it a victory for the pigs or for the animal rights movement.”
Kim:
The real question to ask is why have the consumers started to have concerns about animal treatment? Did these corporations suddenly realize they weren't making a profit and decide to make costly changes to their operations in a vacuum?
Um, no.
Because of the impact of the animal advocacy movement, and the success of ongoing campaigns to educate the public on animal treatment, consumers are demanding (what they believe to be) animal products that came from "humanely" treated animals. So of course industry is going to react to the changing attitudes, instigated by the "movement", and adjust accordingly. And isn't this a natural first response by both the public and industries to this previously hidden information?
These industries fight very hard to keep the realities of their exploitation away from public view because it is cheaper and more profitable to disregard the suffering of the animals. (And changing "production" methods is a very costly intitial investment.) Now that their practices are being successfully exposed, did anyone think they were just going to close up shop, or that consumers were ready to give up their animal products?
The public wants to believe the myth that they can still consume animal products without causing suffering. Is it really plausible that most people, at this point, are ready to accept the notion that something they've been brainwashed about since receiving that first bottle of cow's milk, is immoral and unethical? That kind of ingrained, societal "norm" isn't something that can be overcome in one step; it obviously takes many. And the first step is getting people aware that animals are suffering at all. Thankfully, that appears to be where we are at now - finally at a point where enough consumers have been educated about the industry to be demanding changes.
So what's next? We continue the education. Advocate to a newly-aware public that there truly is no "humane" way to exploit another being for profit. It's time to accept that this current notion of "humane" animal products is the logical reaction by a society numbed by "tradition" and industrial influence. Becoming frustrated and angry at this reality doesn't move us forward, at best, and does nothing to help the animals, at worst.
Gary:
Why would a corporation do something that might cut into profits? Two major reasons are:
1) To comply with government mandates or revisions in the law;
2) To stay viable in the face of shifting consumer demand.
Both of these factors are forcing changes in the animal agriculture sector.
I want to focus first on the latter influence. When running a business, you either have to respond to changing customer demand or go belly-up. This is what I believe is the main cause of recent reforms in the animal agriculture industry.
Consumers now indicate more care about farmed animal's interests than they did five or ten years ago. It's insufficient, inconsistent, and unsteady to be sure; although I predict it will strengthen over time. In any event, the public is starting to no longer accept certain cruelties that have been standard practices in animal agriculture for decades. This is why companies are getting rid of gestation crates, veal pens, and battery cages. The market has begun to reject those practices. Companies - if they want to stay in business - have to respond to those concerns.
Furthermore, states are passing referendums banning these practices. And according to polls, the practices are being outlawed not because of parochial "not in my backyard" complaints but on ethical grounds. So producers can't simply relocate and solve the problem. They're being forced - if not mandated - to abolish certain procedures.
They're naturally worried about the trendline. Where does this newfound concern stop? Where does it lead? If we encompass vegan advocacy - educating people on animals' interests, conveying our obligation not to violate those interests whenever practically possible, and showing how one can have a diverse, peaceful, and deeply satisfying vegan diet - the concern will hopefully lead to the abolition of animal agriculture and other forms of institutionalized animal exploitation. And, I hope, far beyond that - to radically more kinship- and compassion-oriented worldviews.
But in the meantime, simply getting the public to feel the animals' pain, and to sympathize with animals as individuals is a huge start. It's already causing significant ripples in the animal agriculture industry, and opening the door for new and exciting vegetarian products and services.
Granted, the purveyors of animal exploitation are trying to leverage the situation foisted upon them to their advantage, by presenting their new improved animal flesh and secretion products as "humane." Of course, the meat, dairy, and egg industries have long sold their products of death and suffering as "happy," one way or another. "Happy meat" is nothing new. I believe this reaction by the industry is to be expected, and may be inevitable, regardless of which animal advocacy strategy is dominant. The animal-killing industry will naturally try to assuage consumers who are having second thoughts about meat by telling them that the animals are happy, as well as by tempting them with tantalizing photos and promotions, and making meat obsessively available. The industry is using its usual deceptions and tricks - and huge bankroll - in an attempt to prevent erosion of consumer demand and confidence. Though "happy meat" may seem on the surface to be merely a new marketing tactic, I think it is a defensive maneuver on the part of industry.
I see some consumers' desire to eat only "happy meat" as progress of a sort. Meat-eating is very much like an addiction in our society. Most people cannot conceive of giving it up. They have strong psychological and emotional attachments to it. They started eating meat before they can remember, and fear that life would be bleak without it, or that they might waste away without their daily meat fix - despite nearly irrefutable and abundant empirical evidence to the contrary. At the same time, more and more meat-eaters are begining to have conflicting feelings about eating animal flesh. They see images of animals suffering in factory farms and hear about horrid cruelties in slaughterhouses. So they take partial steps and make irrational but superficially satisfying deals with themselves: "I'll only buy free-range chickens" or "I'll only buy meat from family farms." This is roughly akin to the alcoholic saying "I'll only drink on the weekends."
The addicts are trying to convince themselves that their behavior is ok, as long as they make some minor modifications. This is insufficient, of course, but it's better than not admitting that there's any problems with their behavior. The dynamic on which advocates can capitalize is the growing number of meat-eaters who are trying - albeit with abundant denial and willful ignorance at this point - to reconcile their deep desire for meat with their emerging concern for animals' interests. At this early stage in their disengagement from their life-long habit, which is heavily promoted and enabled by society, meat-eaters are taking baby steps, and occasionally backsliding. But since they do feel some pangs of guilt now, we can show them that the "happy meat solution" is no solution at all, since there is cruelty and profound violation of animals' interests throughout animal agriculture, and there is a world of vegan foods that can make up a wonderfully satisfying, diverse, and healthy - and compassionate and non-violent - diet. And that the variety, accessibility, and quality of vegan products will expand greatly as more people give up animal products. The possibilities for fantastic animal-free diets, and the peace of mind that comes with that - which may lead to increased peace with others (human and nonhuman) - are magnificent.
I do agree that profit is a powerful and dominating feature of business in the capitalist world, and that some companies are obsessed with profit, even to the point of flagrantly violating basic morals if they get in the way of the bottom line. As I point out repeatedly in my one-on-one activism, profit is a driving force behind all the cruelties that are embedded in animal agriculture and other industries that use animals as tools. I almost always get quick and uncontested agreement on that. Love of money may not be the root of all evil, but it is often an accomplice to atrocities. In my personal outreach, I urge people not to be a part of such wrongdoing, and endeavor to show them the way out.
(Sidebar: I'm interested in digging deeper, and investigating the psychology and social pressures behind people's quest for money and power, which often fuels domination and exploitation. I plan to discuss - and maybe "blogverse" that topic in Animal Writings down the road.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
