Monday, April 21, 2008

Transparency in animal agriculture

Elaine Vigneault has started calling for the installation of video cameras in slaughterhouses in response to recent revelations of animal cruelty — revelations that are only news to those who haven't been paying attention. Elaine being an ethical vegan committed to animal rights, I have no doubt that she is sincere in her advocacy of this measure, and that she believes it would lead to good outcomes for the animals killed for meat.

I think she is wrong.

First, I need to go out of my way to emphasize that I think that transparency in animal slaughter would result in some, perhaps even most, animals suffering less before being killed. That is to say, I think that video cameras in slaughterhouses would indeed lead to enforcement of animal welfare laws. This is, of course, exactly what Elaine says in her sample letter to congress to get the ball rolling.
Transparency is a really good step to improving farm animals’ lives and preventing egregious cruelty like that shown in the HSUS video. It’s also a great idea to improve accordance with labor laws, public health laws, and environmental protection laws.
I agree that transparency has a good chance of achieving those goals.

The question I have is: are those goals worth achieving? Certainly, all animal rights advocates (and all decent human beings) would rather animals suffer less than more, all things being equal. Nobody would argue that, say, a chicken with room to flap its wings (unlike virtually every chicken used for food today) would not be better off than a chicken that cannot. The issue is not whether some measure will achieve some welfare goal, but wether it will achieve that goal to the exclusion of the ultimate goal that I, Elaine, and other advocates of animal rights wish to achieve: the abolition of animal use entirely.

The argument is that, after drawing attention to the most egregious cruelty and ending it, people will choose to continue paying attention to the not so egregious killing part, and eventually start objecting to that as well. The problem here is that it is no surprise to people that animals are killed for meat. Everyone knows this. They only object, to the extent that they do at all, to it being done in an inhumane manner. Once they are assured by all of this transparency that the animals aren't being mistreated while being killed, they will stop paying attention. In fact, if history is any indication, they will consume more meat, secure in their knowledge that the meat came from cruelty-free slaughter.

I know this seems counterintuitive to some vegans, most of whom weren't born believing in animal rights. We think, "If only they can see what happens, they'll stop." And in some sense, this is true. Seeing how awful slaughterhouses are, through Meet Your Meat or Earthlings or anywhere else, has made many a vegan. But those videos do not come with the promise of fixing the problem. Transparency in slaughterhouses doesn't say to the public, "Look at how cruel animals are treated, let's stop eating them." Transparency in slaughterhouses accepts slaughterhouses! Transparency in slaughterhouses says, "Slaughter, but slaughter gently!"

Can we see the difference here? We can work to end cruelty in a way that also works to abolish animal exploitation. It can be done. This isn't how to do it. We only have so much energy to spend on advocating for animals, and we ought to focus that energy only where it will best achieve our goals.

5 comments:

  1. Good essay. Obviously, I disagree, but I can see where you're coming from.

    I became vegetarian as a child when I learned that meat came from animals. I wouldn't have been comforted knowing the animals 'never saw it coming' or that they live happy lives beforehand. I was uncomfortable with the killing, period.

    I became vegan many years later, however. That experience was more about figuring out how to do it than about wanting to believe that animals didn't suffer. That was about me saying to myself, "this is cruel world and I can't martyr myself for everyone." Eventually that excuse didn't hold up because being vegan isn't martyrdom - it's actually pretty easy most of the time.

    I guess my point is that I'm offering my story as a counter-example to your narrative that "Once they are assured by all of this transparency that the animals aren't being mistreated while being killed, they will stop paying attention."
    I just don't think that's true.

    Listen, I'm against war - all war. I don't think there is ever a really good justification for large, state battles. And I'd like to see war abolished, too. But that's not going to stop me from urging reporters to film and log what happens in Iraq. That's not going to make keeping secret prisons OK. We should get everything out there in the open, be honest, and be responsible for our actions.

    Transparency doesn't "say" anything. Transparency simply opens up the doors for criticism and scrutiny.

    Lastly, if your companion animal were in one of those facilities, would you be willing to sacrifice him or her for the larger, greater good you expect will come in the future from not demanding transparency? Or would you urge for the more immediate benefit that might save his or her life, or at least make his or her life and death a little more bearable? Be honest.

    ReplyDelete
  2. And I'd like to see war abolished, too. But that's not going to stop me from urging reporters to film and log what happens in Iraq.

    This is crucial: I support urging reporters to film and log what happens in slaughterhouses!

    But you're not proposing that here. You're proposing that the Army, under the oversight of the Defense Department, film and log what happens in Iraq! Do you think that would illuminate a whole lot of atrocities?

    Having the industry, in association with government agencies, enact "transparency" ensures that the process will be a PR boon for happy meat. As in virtually very other welfare campaign, the result will be many, many public statements and press release about how the meat production process has been cleaned up and is now cruelty-free... and so people will feel good about continuing to eat meat.

    If you were instead calling for increased media coverage, undercover reporting, and the like, well, I wouldn't be complaining.

    Lastly, if your companion animal were in one of those facilities, would you be willing to sacrifice him or her for the larger, greater good you expect will come in the future from not demanding transparency? Or would you urge for the more immediate benefit that might save his or her life, or at least make his or her life and death a little more bearable? Be honest.

    I'd imagine if my companion animal were in one of those facilities, my goal would be trying to get him or her out, not gaining the ability to watch him or her die. When a young girl is kidnapped, the police don't typically issue a demand that the kidnapper kill her with as little pain as possible and on camera.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Definitely gotta agree with Ryan on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "If you were instead calling for increased media coverage, undercover reporting, and the like, well, I wouldn't be complaining."

    To be clear, I'm ALSO calling for those things. In fact, I wrote a letter to Oprah asking that she do a show about factory farming. And when I say "demand transparency" I mean it. I don't mean something else, like, "demand more governmental oversight", I mean, demand transparency.

    Your kidnapping analogy is flawed because kidnapping is against the law and is condemned by society. A better analogy is if your friend was wrongly convicted of a crime and sentenced to death. Sure, you'd work on his/her appeal, but wouldn't you also want to make sure if s/he was killed that it was done as painlessly as possible? Those goals do not necessarily conflict - one can work on both simultaneously.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wow. You have covered such a divisive and complex issue so clearly and powerfully. Thank you for sharing with all of us.

    ReplyDelete