Meat is Murder: the ethics of animal welfare

People adopt a vegetarian diet for a variety of reasons - concern for the environment, economic and world hunger concerns, compassion for animals, belief in nonviolence, food preferences, health, religious beliefs.  In this piece I will attempt to briefly cover some of the ethical arguments around the farming and slaughter of animals for human use.

It is morally ‘wrong’ to inflict suffering on sentient animals without a justifiable cause.

This is a statement which very few people would disagree with.  For example, I don’t believe any scrupulous person would attempt to defend factory farming on moral or ethical grounds.  The only argument for the use of such methods could be economical.  However, the low cost of such meat and egg production is passed on to society in the form of water pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and pasture degradation.  In any case, the economic argument is now leading farmers away from methods such as veal crates, as stress and disease take their toll on intensively farmed livestock and, consequently, profits.

What alternatives are available to those concerned with the welfare and treatment of livestock?

The term ‘conscientious omnivore’ was coined by Peter Singer and Jim Mason in their book “The Ethics of What We Eat”. The health, environmental and animal welfare implications of a meat-dominated diet are well known.  Advocates of vegetarianism and veganism have been forwarding these arguments for decades.  However, not all are willing to give up meat or other animal products entirely, or perhaps are not convinced that it is necessary.  The compromise position is a diet which eschews processed meats and includes only sparing amounts of red meat, plus some white meat and fish.  An example of this is the low-meat diet championed by Friends of the Earth as a healthy and sustainable alternative to the average diet.

Buying only organic and locally-produced products further reduces the carbon footprint of our food, while also beginning to address the question of animal welfare.  The legal definition of ‘organic’ or ‘bio’ varies between those countries where one exists at all, but the stricter criteria will look something like those for the UK described by the Soil Association:

Organic farm animals:

·         Must have access to fields (when weather and ground conditions permit) and are truly free range

·         Must have plenty of space – which helps to reduce stress and disease

·         Must be fed a diet that is as natural as possible and free from genetically modified organisms (GMOs)

·         Must only be given drugs to treat an illness – the routine use of antibiotics is prohibited

·         Cannot be given hormones which make them grow more quickly or make them more productive

·         Must not be produced from cloned animals

Wholefoods, the ‘natural foods’ supermarket chain, offers a ‘5 step animal welfare rating’ to help their customers chose animal products which meet a variety of welfare considerations, from 'enriched environment' to 'animal-centred, entire life on same farm'. The Marine Stewardship Council promotes sustainable fishing and provides certification for suppliers that their products come from a fishery that has been “independently confirmed as well managed and sustainable”.  This gives consumers the option to support sustainable fisheries by buying fish with the MSC mark.

At the end of its happy, fulfilling life, the organic animal is sent away to be humanely slaughtered. The Humane Slaughter Association state that:

“Slaughter can be humane if an animal is protected from avoidable excitement, pain or suffering. To achieve this, the animal must be effectively restrained and then stunned, rendering it insensible to pain, and finally bled rapidly and profusely to ensure death before recovery could occur. If a stunning method does not cause instantaneous insensibility, the stunning must be non-aversive (i.e. must not cause fear, pain or other unpleasant feelings) to the animal.”

So-called ‘Happy meat’ has been ridiculed by many animal welfare advocates. Even in the circumstances endorsed by the Humane Slaughter Association, pressure to increase speed and therefore profitability, alongside human fallibility mean mistakes happen.  Footage of animals still conscious as their throats are cut or even as they are carried off to be butchered shows that ‘humane slaughter’ fails even by its own standards.Organic farmers pushing the limits of legislation in order to maximise profitability also lead to abuses, such as the organically-certified Bushway Packing, who were cited for inhumane treatment of animals, including two calves which were skinned alive. These concerns have left many unconvinced that slaughter can ever be ‘humane’.

While animal advocacy groups have welcomed improvements in animal welfare, they do not endorse ‘humane’ slaughter or welfare labelling schemes.  Such schemes, so the argument goes, allow conscientious consumers to feel good about buying meat because they believe the animals have lived fulfilling lives and have not suffered “unnecessarily” when being slaughtered.

But that word – “unnecessarily” – is key; is slaughter necessary at all?  We know that it is possible to eat a varied, well-balanced diet and to enjoy optimal health without meat.  So what makes the slaughter of animals and consumption of their flesh necessary?  Four reasons are commonly identified for eating meat:

Habit – I and my family have always eaten meat

Tradition – We Faroe Islanders have slaughtered 100s of whales for food every year for centuries

Convenience – Switching to a meat-free diet is difficult and will create conflicts with my friends and family

Pleasure – I love the taste of meat and seafood

Referring back to our opening statement, do any of these reasons provide a justifiable cause for inflicting suffering and death on sentient animals? Many of those for whom the answer is ‘no’ choose to become vegetarians.  But this presents another dilemma:  dairy farming creates at least as much suffering as meat production.  From artificial insemination, separation of mother and calf, to the discomfort of the milking process, dairy farming inflicts pain and stress on the animals at every stage.  The cows live longer under these conditions than those raised solely for meat and face the same slaughter at the end of their productivity.  So much so that many have claimed that a glass of milk represents more suffering than a steak. What about eggs?  Again, even on farms certified organic the conditions can be horrific. And that’s just the egg-laying females.  Male chicks cannot lay eggs and, as a breed selected for egg-laying and not for gaining weight, are not economical for meat production.  As they provide no profit to farmers, they are separated from the females and slaughtered soon after hatching, often ending up in pet food.

This leads some people to conclude that it impossible to eat any foods derived from animals without being complicit in inflicting unnecessary suffering on sentient beings. For example, animal advocacy groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have welcomed improved treatment of animals through organic farming methods, but refuse to endorse the farming of animals at all, preferring to urge their members, supporters and all concerned people to adopt a vegan lifestyle.

Some campaigners for the abolition of animal farming go further, actively opposing animal welfare certification schemes on the grounds that they foster more animal suffering by leading conscientious consumers to believe that they can still enjoy meat, eggs and diary without any animal having to suffer. One such person is Professor Gary Francione, long time vegan and ardent advocate of animal rights.  Francione argues that animals have the right to not to be treated as chattel property and concludes that, even if we were able to guarantee a 100% suffering-free life and death of animals farmed for food, it would still be morally unjustifiable.

I began by presenting a statement which I feel is uncontroversial and which very few people would dispute:

It is morally ‘wrong’ to inflict suffering on sentient animals without a justifiable cause.

What, then, is a justifiable cause for the continued farming of animals? Knowing that it is possible to enjoy optimal health on a plant-based diet, free of meat, fish, dairy or eggs, can a person continue to vote with their wallet for the exploitation and slaughter of animals and keep a clear conscience?