United Poultry Concerns Conference Wrap-up

The Conference

I have to say that overall I was disappointed with the conference, from the perspective of the stated focus and purpose. Although there was information I found thought-provoking in a few of the presentations, little of that had to do with the topic of effective advocacy and how to bridge the existing divide among animal advocates.

Most of the presenters generally offered defensive statements about their positions, in poorly organized presentations, with little time left for productive attendee participation. This kind of conference would be better served without “speakers”, with the focus instead being on challenging advocates coming from different viewpoints to directly address one another in order to come to some solutions. For instance, I think a better approach would have been to assign everyone to a small group of advocates of differing views, and have them, as a group, come up with a solution or consensus on a particular issue. Then each group could have addressed the other attendees, revealing their compromise, or why one was impossible.

I particularly felt bad for those attendees who traveled a long distance and spent lots of money to attend the conference, yet left without any sense of understanding of any position, or even a glimmer of resolution on the issues. There were some wonderful advocates in attendance, whose insight was in no way harnessed for the benefit of everyone there. What a lost opportunity to hear their perspectives and try to find some way to understand where they are coming from.

I did appreciate the opportunity to see the sanctuary, meet the feathered residents and hear Karen Davis’s always inspiring words, but unfortunately that visit cut into valuable time that could have been spent more productively. I do hope in the future that when such a diverse group is gathered, a more effective format will be employed in order to get to the heart of the issues.

Norfolk

Norfolk was interesting. The people seemed very friendly and diverse and really attractive (I couldn't help but notice this for some reason!). The city center is small, with some very beautiful older homes in one section near the water. The visual highlight was definitely seeing PETA’s large headquarters looming from many points in the city. As someone who has to drive by NRA headquarters frequently, I can’t tell you what a refreshing change it was to see an animal group building featured so prominently!

Vegan Eats

We had some good food while there. The conference host hotel, Hilton, offered a delicious lunch of salad, stuffed red pepper with some tofu mixture, pasta and grilled veggies with a peanutty chocolate pie thing for dessert. Some of us ate dinner at Amalfi’s, of which the faux salmon was freakishly authentic, with fake “skin” and all! My faux chicken with a wine sauce, veggies and potatoes was really good. And the raspberry vegan cheesecake was awesome! We also indulged in some vegan pizza – a mushroom, olive and spinach pie with soy cheese – from Bella Pizzeria. It was the best vegan pizza I have had yet. Unfortunately, the vegan frozen custard place was closed for the season, so we had Rita’s Water Ice instead, which was almost as good, but not quite….

Blogversation Series - Animal Advocacy Strategies - Karen Davis's Statement

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.

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.