I disagree with the notion that welfare reforms cause people to feel more comfortable about consuming animals. In fact, empirical evidence suggests the opposite. Welfare reforms lead to more awareness about the issues, which leads people to eat fewer animal products. ~ Gene Baur
There is no empirical or anecdotal evidence to support this claim. All anyone has to do is do a little homework on the USDA AMS website (Agricultural Marketing Service). Animal consumption is going up, particularly through exports and the growth of "free range", "grass fed" animal products. I work in a co-op and I talk to customers every day. the increasing availability of "humane" animal products has indeed made many people feel comfortable with either switching over to these products or in some cases those eating a plant based diet forsake it for animal products they feel have been produced in an "ethical" manner.
ReplyDeleteHuman nature generally looks for the easy way out and some people have a hard time living a life that is outside the herding culture paradigm we live in. I have talked to many people who have participated in ballot initiatives here in the US, voting for animal husbandry reforms and have told me that they feel good that they took action to improve the situation of farm animals. In talking with with them I realized that they find a sort of moral absolution in being part of a political action that may (or may not) change the abbreviated lives of farm animals. Does it get them to think differently about food animals? Yes it does, but not about the use of the animals. They are focused on the abuse of animals.
Hi farmboy!
ReplyDeleteI apologize for the length of this comment, it has to be in two parts!!
Gene Baur makes two main claims in that short quote. First, he says that he disagrees with the idea that there is some causal relationship between welfare reforms - by which I take him to me things such as the elimination of sow gestation crates - and people becoming "more comfortable" eating other animals. I think Gene is on pretty solid ground on this point.
It seems that if people were to become "more comfortable" eating other animals because of some measure, then people generally would have to have been somewhat less comfortable eating other animals before that. There's little, if any, evidence to suggest that people generally are at all uncomfortable with their practices of eating other animals so it's difficult to imagine that any measure would increase their already near absolute comfort levels. Now, it may well be the case that there were people who, prior to some measure coming to the fore, were vegetarians or vegans solely for reasons concerning the poor treatment of other animals. We can imagine that a percentage of those people might resume eating other animals if they were to believe that the measure actually made a significant improvement in the lives of other animals. But, it seems unlikely that any vegetarian or vegan who finds the use or killing of other animals completely unacceptable would be influenced to resume eating other animals as a result of any welfare reform measure. So, welfare reforms don't appear to be able to make current consumers of animal products more comfortable, because those people are likely to be as comfortable as they can possible be. Welfare reforms might play a role in some percentage of vegetarians or vegans resuming the eating of other animals but it's unlikely that welfare reforms would make any difference in the practices of committed ethical vegetarians and vegans.
The percentage of actual vegetarians and vegans in the US is quite small, and so the number of those people on whom welfare reform measures would have an impact is necessarily very low in comparison to the overall population. As a result, it is unlikely that any increase in the overall rate of consumption of other animals could be attributed to welfare reforms. I’ll say more on the actual rate of consumption later.
Gene's second claim is empirical evidence suggests that welfare reform measures lead to people becoming more aware of the issues which awareness then leads people to eat fewer animal products. This claim is harder to defend, because there is scant empirical data on which to do so. However, there is some, in the form of a couple of studies, one on the sale of "cage-free" eggs in California and one on the correlation between the increasing frequency in the US media of certain keywords related to animal welfare and the rate of increase in demand for food products derived from chickens, pigs and cows. Neither study is conclusive but the first does not support the view that the "cage-free" egg initiative increase the overall number of eggs consumed in California. If anything, it indicates that the total number of eggs consumed either remained flat or decreased because of the "cage-free" initiative. In the case of the second study, if welfare reforms really did cause more people to become "more comfortable" in consuming other animals, one could reasonably expect a correlation between an increase in the frequency of certain keywords and increase in the rate of demand. However, the study shows the opposite. It shows a correlation between the higher frequency of the keywords and decrease in the expected rate of increase of demand for chickens and pigs. The study doesn't prove that increased media mentions of animal welfare cause that decrease, but it does show that mentions of welfare are not correlated to the increase in the rate of demand, which is what we should expect if Gene was wrong about his second claim. So, we can't say that Gene is right, but the evidence I've seen doesn't show that he's wrong. If anyone reading this knows of any additional relevant studies I am eager to see them.
ReplyDeleteContrary to what you've said, the latest available data from the USDA that I have been able to find indicates that per capita availability of food products in the US from each of the major classes of other animals has either gone down or stayed the same since 2005/6. I suspect this has more to do with the overall economic climate than anything else, but I haven't seen any data to support the claim that per capita consumption of other animals in the US is increasing. I accept that it is increasing worldwide but that's an issue entirely separate from what Gene is talking about.
So, I was wrong, it has to be in THREE parts. I should learn to say less, I suppose.
Finally, I can't, of course, deny the validity of your own experiences. I am sure that people tell you what you say they tell you. However, I think it is quite easy for us to mistake excuses for reasons. People, I believe, will cite the availability of "humane" meat as a reason for why they still eat other animals, but I believe it is simply a convenient excuse in that, were "humane" options not available, they would find some other excuse to continue eating other animals anyway. I think the historical data supports this view. Before the advent of "humane" options, it seems highly unlikely that there were large numbers of people who were on the verge of becoming vegetarian or vegan who have now been somehow persuaded not to simply because "humane" options came upon the scene. Certainly, no one can point to any data at all that supports the view that significant numbers of people were once actually vegetarian or vegan and no longer are simple because of “humane” options.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, I am personally opposed to the consumption of other animals and I believe that there is no way to raise and kill other animals in way that could be seriously called "humane". Even if there were such ways, it wouldn't matter to me, because I believe that most other animals are the sorts of beings who ought not to be needlessly killed. At the same time, I do think that when, in the US at least, we are trying to convince roughly 99% of the population that they should adopt our views, it is likely that welfare reform measures help shift the public's consciousness closer to, and not further away from, those views.
Hi Farmboy,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment!
I completely agree with you, and my personal experiences have shown me that people do indeed feel more comfortable continuing to consume other animals when they feel that they're able to do so believing those others have been raised and killed "ethically", and also when society continues to reinforce that other animals are ours to use as we see fit.
I think you're spot on with your comment about human nature generally looking for the easiest way out. I think most humans also look to make the least compromises and changes as possible in order to feel they're the types of people who are good people.
Will Tuttle commented in his ARZone podcast [http://arzonepodcasts.blogspot.com/2011/07/arzone-podcast-5-dr-will-tuttle.html] (he was specifically referring to the HSUS/UEP deal) that when people have an excuse to continue exploiting others, they will. He was referring to the type of people who visit an event like the Vegetarian Summerfest, and are looking into a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle, but may be met with reasons why "happy exploitation" is a good thing.
I agree with part of your comment too, Tim. I think it was on the 27th page of your comment! I absolutely believe that people will say what they think you want to hear, and what makes them feel good about themselves.
I think this "humane" meat and "free-range" phase has the potential to set back the cause of animal rights like nothing before has. I think it's more concerning than people choose to realise.
Welfarism is a propaganda set up for the meat industry. Sorry no time to elaborate but that's what I am thinking everytime I meet a welfarist argument.
ReplyDeleteMy (limited) experience with family, friends, colleagues (and self) lead me to believe that welfare reforms do make non vegans more comfortable eating other animals/animal products. Perhaps some of those who are more comfortable would never move to veganism. But for them to feel more comfortable shows that there is a stirring of conscience, an awareness already there. By giving them 'humane' choices do we stifle that? I believe so.
ReplyDeleteI am sorry but I find it implausible that large numbers of people would stop eating other animals if not for the availability of so-called "humane" options. I have no doubt that people believe that by eating so-called "humane" options that they are causing less suffering, but that doesn't mean that they would quit eating other animals, or even eat fewer other animals, if those options were not available. Before the advent of these options, was there significantly higher percentage of vegetarians & vegans in the Western world? No, there was not. Is there any credible study that shows that people who have been ethical vegetarians or vegans are no longer because of the availability of these options? No, there is not.
ReplyDeleteHi Tim, it is a concern that veganism or even vegetarianism does not reach 'the mass' of people, the majority that is, but that doesn't directly prove that abolitionism versus welfarism has failed, I believe.
ReplyDeleteTim and farmbody, since you mention statistics to back up your thesis, please give direct links to them when you can, since you mention the same source and contraqdict each other.(and because I don't know how to find these statistics you mentioned).
ty, anna
Sociologically, we should expect to see what we seem to be seeing here - different strokes for different folks. For some people, then, the existence of happy meat products feeds into their socialised belief that "non-cruel use" is possible, and they'll seek out such products thinking that there is therefore no need to not eat the products derived from other sentients. It is likely that there will be some "slippage" here, too, in the sense that not all animal products bought will meet an individual's "happy" standards - when dining out, in processed foods, etc., etc.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, some other people will not be "bought off" by the existence of happy meat or other "humanely-produced" items. What we must understand, I feel, is that there is no silver bullet, no fix-all situation, to be found. Human beings react differently to knowledge because they bring their socialised and institutionalised meanings and values to it. That said, these norms and values are not utterly static - there is fluidity - and so people change over time just as social mores alter over time.
In some senses, a social movement is involved in something like a lottery hoping that its message will appeal to its audience(s) on every given occasion. However, this will never happen.
I think the brute fact is that the promotion of "happy meat" could well be someone's start on their road to veganism - but it also could be one of the constituent parts of their reasons to reject the vegan message as "unneeded," "too radical," "too extreme," and so on.
I think this is why we are "seeing" evidence on both sides of this issue.
Hi Anna, I have not argued that "abolitionism vs. welfarism has failed." Rather, what I am arguing is that it is a mistake to claim that welfare reforms and/or so-called "humane" alternatives somehow prevent or stand in the way of the eventual abolition of the exploitation of other animals.
ReplyDeleteThe study on eggs in California is available herre: http://www.bepress.com/jafio/vol8/iss1/art3/
A summary of the study on the correlation between demand and keywords related to animal welfare is available here: http://www.agmanager.info/livestock/marketing/AnimalWelfare/MF2951.pdf
Roger, I agree with you.
ReplyDeleteThere is, I believe, a dialectical process ongoing, in which "most people" and the dominant social institutions (the animal industries, the government, the media and so forth) are interacting with, reacting to and responding to the demands put forth by the various voices speaking on behalf of other animals. Many, perhaps most, of the reactions and responses will fall far short of what is being demanded, but each reaction and response is a potential acknowledgment of the legitimacy of the demands. On my view then, "humane" alternatives are at once both wholly inadequate as a response to the demands while at the same time an inevitable and inescapable step in a complicated dance that will continue to play out for decades to come.
Ok Tim, I did not read you well. Will re-read and answer laters (much laters). This is THE issue in animal rights, isn't it? I mean, its the 'hot' debate among us. Will come back to continue the discussion here and hope more advocates will share an opinion on this :-)
ReplyDelete