In Analysis of Controlled-Atmosphere Killing vs. The new welfarist groups, such as PETA, have also adopted it. This approach is not confined to the traditional welfarist groups like HSUS. Take a look at the HSUS report on The Economics of Adopting Alternative Production Systems to Gestation Crates, which argues that alternatives to the crate will increase productivity and producer profits, or the HSUS report on The Economics of Adopting Alternative Production Practices to Electrical Stunning Slaughter of Poultry, which argues that gassing “results in cost savings and increased revenues by decreasing carcass downgrades, contamination, and refrigeration costs increasing meat yields, quality, and shelf life and improving worker conditions.” This explicitly reinforces the status of nonhumans as commodities, as property.įor example, The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) promotes animal welfare reforms based explicitly on the economic benefits that will result from the more efficient use of animals as economic commodities. That is, animal welfare generally protects animal interests only to the extent that it provides economic benefits for humans. Animal welfare standards are generally linked to what is required to exploit animals in an efficient manner. Third, animal welfare does nothing to eradicate the property status of animals. For example, in Europe, veal consumption has increased as the result of regulation about the confinement of veal calves. There is no question that this phenomenon occurs. That’s a total of 54 units of suffering-a net increase. A welfare measure results in a reduction of 1 unit of suffering for each animal, but consumption rises to 6 animals. Assume that we are exploiting 5 animals and imposing 10 units of suffering on each. Ironically, animal welfare reform may actually increase animal suffering. Indeed, it is clear that people who have avoided animal foods because of concerns about animal treatment are returning to eating them after being told by animal welfare organizations that animals are being treated more “humanely.” I discuss this issue in my blog essay on “Happy” Meat/Animal Products. Second, animal welfare measures make the public feel better about animal exploitation and this encourages continued animal use. The same may be said of most animal welfare “improvements.” They may make us feel better but they do very little for the animals. I wrote a blog essay, A “Triumph” of Animal Welfare?, about the gestation crate campaign in Florida, which illustrates the limits of such reforms. But, on closer examination, these measures, which involve costly campaigns, really do not amount to very much in that there are considerable loopholes that allow institutional exploiters to do what they want in any event. It borders on delusion to claim otherwise.Ī number of animal groups are campaigning for alternatives to the gestation crate for pigs. But a slaughterhouse that follows Grandin’s guidelines and one that does not, are both hideous places. For example, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) campaigned to get McDonald’s and other fast-food chains to adopt Temple Grandin’s handling and slaughter methods. There are at least four problems with the welfarist approach to animal ethics.įirst, animal welfare measures provide little, if any, significant protection to animal interests. A number of readers have been asking me to write something that they can download and use as a short response to those animal advocates who promote the welfarist approach and who do not understand why this approach is inconsistent with the rights/abolitionist position.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |