.png)
In a blog entitled "HSUS' Paul Shapiro Reaches Out to Meat Industry," author Mylene Ouellet shows how some of the most popular responses to the plight of animals are, in fact, seriously detrimental to the rights and suffering of animals conversely.
A storm of back-and-forth commentary follows this article; some of which makes redundant arguments that animal welfarism should be supported because it minimizes the suffering of animals, etc.
Let me make some general observations from the article's contents and comments.
What's wrong with animal welfarism?
HSUS, like most animal welfare agencies, takes a position against cruel animal confinement and conditions which make the enslavement of animals (more) unpleasant.
Watch a few YouTube videos on subjects like "battery cages" and "gestation crates" and you'll no doubt agree these conditions are deplorable. The intuitive conclusion would be that chickens not in battery cages is better than chickens in battery cages and so on.
Let me make a point to stop here and state the abolitionist and the welfarist agrees on this generality but there's more.
For those in disagreement over this article, let me acknowledge the position taken by the abolitionist may appear counterintuitive on the surface. If someone suggests we should not legislate against battery cages, not support large animal welfare charities who state they are working to sway public opinion, and instead use those resources toward completely abolishing animal use, an advocate may feel they would be turning his or her back on the animals, that a response is not being made to the suffering of animals.
1. "Welfare reforms at least reduce the suffering of animals, if not completely abolish it"
In welfarism, attention is paid to the isolated fact that an animal is taken out of a cage, gestation crate etcetera. Their reduction in suffering is the appearance. The reality is that these reforms are often very misleading. The lauded reforms of Cali. Prop 2 had an entire list of exceptions which allowed producers to completely ignore Prop 2 when the animal was pregnant, being transported, given "vet" care, an so on. They also only account for negligible reform of the plight of animals. This is why Prof. Francione uses the metaphor of a hard electric chair versus a padded one.
2. "At least animal reform is better than nothing"
Reality: These reforms account for funds, resources, and time given by supporters of welfarism. It costs money to pay administrative fees, hire lawyers, create propaganda, google ads, whatever. These resources could otherwise be used to promote vegan education. More vegans in the world equates to fewer animals being put in the circumstance where their suffering needs attention. More importantly, vegan education creates a cultural shift where society gradually understands our usage of animals as property and the fact their suffering is a consequence of their being used as property.
3. "Welfarist regulation sends a positive message to the public about the plight of animals on factory farms"
Is this made up for by the fact the public is being educated about the suffering of animals on factory farms? The public is not being educated whatsoever by welfarism that animal exploitation necessarily leads to suffering. The public is not being shown or untrained from thinking of animals as objects of possession which exist for our use. The public is not being told it is wrong to cause any harm to an animal unless it is unnecessary to force them to create meat, milk, eggs, jackets, entertainment, labor, chemicals, research, etc.It is for these reasons we must look beyond what is immediately intuitive and what is taught to us by 6-figure salaried figures like Wayne Pacelle of the multi-million dollar Humane Society of the United States whose existence depends on public support and the donations thereof rather than any success in addressing the exploitation of animals.
Comments
Was that meat on your plate?
Are you wondering about who you ate?
Instead of asking what's wrong or right,
Just ask for certified humane tonight.
Friends of Animals, Darien CT
EPIC conversation. This is what I have been waiting for, and it's just the beginning.
By the way, could someone offer a list of true animal rights/vegan organizations? I can only come up with a couple off the top of my head: Boston Vegan Association and H.E.A.L.T.H. (though the only thing I know about the latter is from Adam's blog which doesn't actually talk specifically about what the original organization does).
Whole Foods has just been cited as the store with the most "humane" options. They have more variety of "happy" than any other.
I eat humanely 3 times a day... and not one of my foods has to have a sticker convincing me of such.
And that BTW is a great response when someone (ignorant) wants to claim "cruelty to plants"... not one vegetable in any store or market ever bears a "humane certification".
Oh... I like that analogy: "electric chair with padded seat". I definately will remember that one! :)
Check the back of your whole foods "organic" veggies. "Product of China" where organic is still up for grabs.
Louche,
The Vegan Party of Canada is trying to raise awareness of, and reduce animal suffering (leafletting, tablings, library displays, etc.) while also addressing the health , environmental and social benefits of a vegan diet/lifestyle.
Excellent column Adam!
Good luck getting to the bottom of this one! This debate has raged for years! Just as Devil's Advocate, what do you think of Vegan Outreach's stance that we should bring people to veganism incrementally?
Although I agree with your points, I see effective welfarist methods more likely to ever happen than the abolition of animals.
Adam, I see your points and agree with many of them. However, I disagree with much of Francionian ideology - especially his twisted and slanted rhetoric against PETA and HSUS.
For anyone interested in the other side of the debate, I recommend reading Patrrice Jone's Strategic Analysis of Animal Welfare Legislation and also Martin Balluch's Abolitionism vs Reformism.
As ong a the focus is on suffering it will be addressed, and profitably, by all parties involved. The animal industry is re-engineering the animals so that they are born with limited mental capacities, i.e. they do not suffer. Dairy cows are already in production and development of other farm animals are in the works. Re-engineering the animals is a win for the industry because they get more milk, the flesh is more tender and they are easier to handle. The welfare advocates win because they can point to these new animals as a "win" in as far as suffering has ended. The food industry can and will make more money because they have empirical proof that these animals do not suffer. This is the wrong metric for advocating for animals.
Rights is rights. None of these husbandry reforms address rights and as far as I can tell, these large organizations done claim to.
Keep up the great work Adam.
Notice the recent sh1twave against Gary Francione? He has been identified as the "source of the irritation" for the multimillion welfarist industry and must be destroyed....
There is also some evidence now that paid welfarists infiltrate blogs, comments, forums, write blogs and maillists to create a momentum against animal rights with the structural rhetoric analogue to war propaganda...
These people and their devoted underlings have realized that veganism and animal rights is going to put them out of business, so, the sh1twaves they are creating are a stand for their survival so to say.
But it's nice to see that less and less people are being fooled by the nonesense.
Great article, Adam!
Thank you for this. I just discovered you and have loved reading each article.
Allen,
How can you support PETA? They kill thousands of animals per year. The cat is out of the bag!
The Humane Society is also more like a profitable company than a group having as its own goal the liberation of animals.
These big 'charities' are more often than not a source of profit and animals are not the nº1 of their concerns.
Isabelle,
I support PETA because I feel the organization does a great job of keeping animal rights issues in the media (and therefore in the mainstream). I personally know dozens of people who have gone vegan because of PETA. I also support PETA because they take in dogs and cats that are turned away by "no-kill" shelters or who are badly and incurably injured or sick and provide them with a painless death. I disapprove of the way Gary Francione frames the rights vs. welfare debate and fuels the misleading and slanderous rhetoric against organizations that are helping animals. It diverts time and funds away from organizations that are making a difference for animals and promotes misinformation and confusion in the movement. I am in favor of honest and fair debate about effective animal liberation tactics, but I am not in favor or slandering animal protection groups.
Allen, if an animal "rights" organization promotes the killing of animals and the notion that animals are products and here to serve us, then that organization deserves to be questioned, challenged and attacked.
Rob, Vegan Outreach says it's okay to eat animals once in a while, as long as you're "reducing" suffering. That's the wrong message.
Harold,
Long time no see! We missed you at the TVFF this year. Your comments about what the industry is doing to animals is really disturbing. We truly are Frankenstein.
Allen, if an animal "rights" organization promotes the killing of animals and the notion that animals are products and here to serve us, then that organization deserves to be questioned, challenged and attacked.
Rob, Vegan Outreach says it's okay to eat animals once in a while, as long as you're "reducing" suffering. That's the wrong message.
Harold,
Long time no see! We missed you at the TVFF this year. Your comments about what the industry is doing to animals is really disturbing. We truly are Frankenstein.
One of the challenges of addressing animal welfare and the problems with it, is that most big animal groups support welfare. And, if you call them out on it, then other activists accuse you of bashing. Activists, who from what I've seen have yet to consider that welfare may be HARMING animals and not helping. All animal activists owe it to the animals to consider and research whether the positions other activists and groups are taking are not only working but ethical. I'm learning that at this moment, it can be a lonely world for an abolitionist vegan. I disdain the idea of having to criticize animal groups. Particularly ones that are run by vegans. (There's not many of us you know. Not yet.) But, my loyalty comes first to the animals. Not to animal groups. And, if animal groups are sending confusing and wrong messages that are actually hurting animals, then they need to be called out on that. Infighting is bad, I know. But, so is staying silent.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!