1. Jenny Mace
MSc Animal Welfare Science, Ethics & Law
J.Mace.16@unimail.winchester.ac.uk

2. Phasing Out Animal Agriculture: Progress for Human Society?
There is now a substantial body of literature detailing the negative effects of animal
agriculture (AAG) on human lives spanning the environment, human health and
finances (e.g., CIWF, 2004; Matsuoska and Sorenson, 2013; UNEP, 2016[a]). This
essay explores the negative effects of AAG on predominantly western societies
through an overview of how these societies are currently progressing and a focus on
issues arising from cognitive dissonance (CD) connected with AAG. The essay
claims that the phasing out of AAG could amount to a significant leap in progress for
humanity.
Progress
The definition of progress, regarding a country or community, is evolving from
calculations based purely on GDP (e.g., the World Development Indicators; World
Bank, 2016) to more holistic calculations based on humans needs, foundations of
well-being and opportunity (e.g., the Social Progress Index; Social Progress
Imperative, 2016). Indeed, UNEP (2016[a]), calls for the incorporation of
environmental sustainability enhancement into the global finance sector’s aims,
demonstrating the emerging and accepted importance of environmental
sustainability to the future of humanity. The implementation of international goals,
such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDG), also sets an
internationally agreed benchmark for and indicator of progress; these too include
many aspects of social welfare (e.g., Zero Hunger and Good Health and Well-being;
UN, 2015). Moreover, recognition of animal welfare as part of sustainability is

3. increasing (FAWC, 2011). Therefore, any idea of progress for humanity needs to
fulfil the aforementioned criteria.
There is some success in working towards the UNSDG; for example, the Kigali
Amendment to the Montreal Protocol to halt HFCs (UN, 2016) and the UK’s meeting
of annual 3% carbon emission reductions (CCC, 2016[a]). However, there is
simultaneous widespread recognition that the progress remains insufficient; action
regarding AAG could help to fill this gap. For example, UNEP concludes of Europe
that ‘urgent transformation of current systems of consumption and production’ is
needed (UNEP, 2016[b], p. 23). The CCC (2016[b]) also concludes that ‘existing
progress needs to be supplemented by more challenging measures’. The Grow
Green Report (The Vegan Society, 2015) notes that since the UN’s recommendation
of a global shift to plant-based diets in 2010, the AAG sector has received little
attention, despite there being unanimous agreement that the sector is responsible for
at least an equal contribution to man-made climate change as the whole transport
sector. An analogy of livestock being to the agricultural sector as fossil fuels are to
the energy sector is also described, and the shift away from fossil fuels is only just
beginning after a century-long battle (Rodhe, 1997). Society could learn from this
and expedite the process of phasing out AAG.
Cognitive dissonance
CD, as defined by Festinger in 1957, is the psychological discomfort arising from two
incongruent cognitions. CD can negatively affect individuals and society through the
tension and unpleasant affect it arouses in individuals (Prvulovic, 2015) and is
commonplace amongst human omnivores (Bastian and Loughnan, 2016). Individuals

4. can feel pressured to treat this tension by adapting their thought patterns to achieve
cognitive and behavioural integrity in the most convenient way; however, this
perceived resolution is only temporary in its effect and comparable to merely treating
a symptom rather than the cause of a disease. As Bastian and Loughnan (2016)
suggest, society leaders should protect their citizens from this psychological
discomfort, which can lead to maladaptive behaviours and ultimately contribute to
more serious mental health issues. Rabin (1994) suggests that CD masks immoral
behaviour on a societal level due to interpersonal influences; individuals may
convince not only themselves that a certain thought or behaviour is morally
acceptable but also others.
Rabin (1994) posits that the effect of CD masking immoral behaviour is heightened if
the ‘distaste for being immoral’ (p. 177) increases, which is accelerating today with
heightened awareness of the links between animal welfare, intensive farming,
human health and environmental destruction. There is danger that the tools people
treat their AAG-related CD with could extend into justifying other forms of immoral
activity. This is conveyed within the notion of intersectionality, which describes the
interconnected root causes of many forms of oppression (Bastian and Loughnan,
2016; Wrenn, 2016). Emphasis is placed on society leaders (rather than individuals)
treating the ultimate cause of AAG-related CD as society does not facilitate
abstinence from animal products (i.e., the upholding of cognitive and behavioural
integrity); for example, due to the heavy subsidisation of animal product
advertisements, promotion of animal products as part of a healthy diet in the
education system (DeMello, 2012) and stigma surrounding veganism (MacInnis and
Hodson, 2015). Without community support and safety in numbers (e.g., roughly only

5. 542,000 vegans live in the UK; The Vegan Society, 2016), each individual who
experiences AAG-related CD needs to be very courageous to not lie to themselves
and ‘swim against the tide’ putting themselves in a severe minority – this requires
substantial confidence, time and energy, qualities not everyone possesses to the
necessary extent.
Cognitive integrity is supported elsewhere in society; for example, politicians and
bosses are respected more if they are thought to have integrity (Allen and Birch,
2015; Greenbaum, Mawritz and Piccolo, 2012). Consequently, the removal of a
prominent form of CD across society by phasing out AAG could create more
politically engaged, emotionally stable, happy and moral citizens. Indeed, Abraham
Lincoln similarly argued that slavery was simply incongruent with societal values of
equality (i.e., creating CD) and claimed that people would be happier without the
burden of slavery on their conscience (Lincoln, 1855).
Empathy is thought to be caused by mirror neurons arising out of biological evolution
(Broom, 2014), thus it is arguably a natural human trait. Empathy has also been a
key motivator of other societal progressions (e.g., human rights, the ending of
slavery, equality between genders and LGBT rights). Thus, criticising those wishing
to see the phasing out of AAG for being too sentimental or unaligned with human
nature is misplaced. The arguments for phasing out AAG are logical and visionary,
the latter being a trait hugely valued in society and encouraged amongst new
generations. If empathy would be consistently valorised in all fields, humans could
achieve the end of animal enslavement. This would be a remarkable feat of history
and could inspire future generations. Barely anyone would wish human slavery still

6. to be in place or for women never to have been granted the right to vote or work,
despite the massive opposition to such societal progress at the respective times. If
humans really are the ‘superior’ species capable of advanced morality and reason
(Mannings and Dawkins, 2012), it could follow that the phasing out of AAG would be
the natural next step.
Society leaders do endeavour to protect the public from distress by placing all
abattoirs out of sight; however, this creates further incongruence with other societal
values such as openness and honesty, therefore this process actually could create
more CD. Furthermore, this could be seen as another sign that such practices
should be phased out if they have to be treated as a hidden-away dark secret.
Hypocrisy is viewed very negatively in society (McDermott, Schwartz and Vallejo,
2015), yet it is overtly present at every stakeholder level concerning AAG. A vegan
diet is debatably the only diet truly compatible with our societal values and goals and
thus required for full cognitive integrity.
Challenges
Strong contestations exist concerning whether the phasing out of AAG would be
progress for society. The strongest amongst them seem to be the beliefs that there
would be a resulting loss of livelihood especially for farmers and damage to a
country’s economy (FAWC, 2011). It is human nature (Serpell, 1999) to respond with
resistance to a perceived threat to one’s livelihood and sense of identity, and the
economy is of course important. Yet, it is unreasonable and unwise to let this limit
the rest of society or let this guide the use of biased information that is predominantly

7. promoted to the public by agribusiness and through politicians who can be financially
supported by agribusiness (DeMello, 2012).
Due to the negative impacts of AAG on humans at every stakeholder level of the
industry, it is reasonable to assume that once the transition is complete, farmers
(and others also depending on the industry for work) may be better off emotionally,
mentally and financially. Significant societal support could be invested into assisting
farmers (and other stakeholders) in their transition to arable farming if desired or to a
different mode of work.
Regarding the economy, humans can adapt as suggested by the aftermath of
slavery and the USA’s leading position economically (World Bank, 2016). Of note is
that the countries that currently have the best animal welfare legislation do not seem
to have greater economic problems than other countries as highlighted by the World
Animal Protection’s Animal Welfare Index (2016).
Any lack of public will has to be considered in tandem with the current system of
agribusiness influence. Public education campaigns concerning the effects of AAG
and promotions of and investments into alternatives to animal products could
encourage the vast majority to naturally move in the directions promoted. New
generations would find it easier still (e.g., akin to the decrease in the number of
smokers in younger generations; NatCen, 2014).

8. Summary
The advantages of phasing out AAG are long-term and so clearly outweigh the short-
term disadvantages of doing so in accordance with a wider interpretation of progress
as defined by the Social Progress Imperative (2016). Humanity needs greater
application of the precautionary principle (UNESCO, 2005) to reduce risks in a world
‘where thresholds and limits are being breached and where endpoints are
increasingly uncertain’ (UNEP, 2016[b]). The Vegan Society’s Grow Green Report
(2015) demonstrates compassionate methods for proceeding. The phasing out of
AAG could enable considerable progress in human society providing substantial
inspiration for the future of humanity. The alternative seems to be that by 2050
livestock could match the consumption of 4 billion people (CIWF, 2004), effectively
becoming man-made competitors of humans for food crops and having a huge
impact on human lives in terms of CD, environmental damage, financial burden and
health costs.

9. References
 Allen, N. and Birch, S. (2015). Ethics and Integrity in British Politics.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
 Bastian, B. and Loughnan, S. (2016). Resolving the meat-paradox: A
motivational account of morally troublesome behavior and its maintenance.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, [Epub ahead of print]: Available
at:
http://psr.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/05/19/1088868316647562.abstract
, DOI: 10.1177/1088868316647562 [Accessed 10th
October 2016].
 Broom, D. M. (2014). Sentience and Animal Welfare. Wallingford,
Oxfordshire, UK: CABI.
 CCC – Committee on Climate Change (2016[a]). How the UK is progressing.
Available at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/tackling-climate-change/reducing-
carbon-emissions/how-the-uk-is-progressing/ [Accessed 17th
October 2016].
 CCC – Committee on Climate Change (2016[b]). Meeting carbon budgets –
2016 progress report to parliament. Available at:
https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2016-CCC-Progress-
Report-Executive-Summary.pdf [Accessed 16th
October 2016].
 CIWF (2004). The global benefits of eating less meat. Available at:
https://www.ciwf.org.uk/media/3817742/global-benefits-of-eating-less-
meat.pdf [Accessed 15th
October 2016].
 DeMello, M. (2012). Animals and Society: An Introduction to Human-Animal
Studies. New York: Columbia University Press.
 FAWC (2011). Economics and farm animal welfare. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/

10. 324964/FAWC_report_on_economics_and_farm_animal_welfare.pdf
[Accessed 16th
October 2016].
 Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Redwood City, CA:
Stanford University Press.
 Greenbaum, R. L., Mawritz, M. B. and Piccolo, R. F. (2012). When leaders fail
to “walk the talk”: Supervisor undermining and perceptions of leader
hypocrisy. Journal of Management, 41(3), 929-956. Available at:
http://jom.sagepub.com/content/41/3/929.short, DOI:
10.1177/0149206312442386 [Accessed 20th
October 2016].
 Lincoln, A. (1855). Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln – Volume 2. Ann
Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Digital Library Production Services.
Available at:
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln2/1:339.1?rgn=div2;singlegenre=All;s
ort=occur;subview=detail;type=simple;view=fulltext;q1=You+know+what+a+p
oor+correspondent+I+am [Accessed 19th
October 2016].
 MacInnis, C. C. and Hodson, G. (2015). It ain’t easy eating greens: Evidence
of bias toward vegetarians and vegans from both source and target. Group
Processes Intergroup Relations [online]. Available at:
http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/12/04/1368430215618253.abstract
, DOI: 10.1177/1368430215618253 [Accessed 15th
October 2016].
 Mannings, A. and Dawkins, M. S. (2012). An Introduction to Animal
Behaviour. 6th
edn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
 Matsuoska, A. and Sorenson, J. (2013). Human consequences of animal
exploitation: Needs for redefining social welfare. Journal of Sociology & Social
Welfare, 40(4), article 3. Available at:

11. http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol40/iss4/3/ [Accessed 15th
October
2016].
 McDermott, M. L., Schwartz, D. and Vallejo, S. (2015). Talking the talk but not
walking the walk: Public reactions to hypocrisy in political scandal. American
Politics Research, 43(6), 952-974. Available at:
http://apr.sagepub.com/content/43/6/952, DOI: 10.1177/1532673X15577830
[Accessed 19th
October 2016].
 NatCen (2014). Survey of smoking, drinking and drug use among young
people in England. Available at: http://natcen.ac.uk/our-
research/research/survey-of-smoking,-drinking-and-drug-use-among-young-
people-in-england/ [Accessed 20th
October].
 Prvulovic, G. (2015). Impacts of cognitive dissonance in the workplace.
Psychology of Safety and Risk, 25 April. Available at:
http://www.safetyrisk.net/impacts-of-cognitive-dissonance-in-the-workplace/
[Accessed 18th
October].
 Rabin, M. (1994). Cognitive dissonance and social change. Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization, 23(2), 177-194. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0167268194900663
[Accessed 17th
October 2016].
 Rodhe, H., Charlson, R. and Crawford E. (1997). Svante Arrhenius and the
greenhouse effect. Ambio, 26(1), 2-5. Available at:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4314542?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
[Accessed 19th
October 2016].

12.  Serpell, J. A. (1999). Sheep in wolves' clothing? Attitudes to animals among
farmers and scientists. In: Dolins, F. L. (ed.) Attitudes to Animals: Views in
Animal Welfare. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 26-33.
 Social Progress Imperative (2016). 2016 Social Progress Index. Available at:
http://www.socialprogressimperative.org/global-index/ [Accessed 15th
October
2016].
 The Vegan Society (2016). There are three and a half times as many vegans
as there were in 2006, making it the fastest growing lifestyle movement.
Available at: https://www.vegansociety.com/whats-new/news/find-out-how-
many-vegans-are-great-britain [Accessed 18th
October 2016].
 The Vegan Society (2015). The grow green report. Available at:
https://www.vegansociety.com/sites/default/files/Grow%20Green%20Report%
20201512a%20web.pdf [Accessed 17th
October 2016].
 World Animal Protection (2016). Animal Protection Index. Available at:
http://api.worldanimalprotection.org/# [Accessed 18th
October 2016].
 UN (2015). Sustainable Development Goals: 17 goals to transform our world.
Available at: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-
development-goals/ [Accessed 16th
October 2016].
 UN (2016). Secretary-general welcomes Kigali amendment to Climate
Change Convention’s Montreal Protocol, aimed at limiting near-term warming
of planet. Available at: http://www.un.org/press/en/2016/sgsm18212.doc.htm
[Accessed 19th
October 2016].
 UNEP – United Nations Environment Programme (2016[a]). UNEP frontiers
2016 report: Emerging issues of environmental concern. Available at:

13. https://web.unep.org/frontiers/sites/unep.org.frontiers/files/documents/unep_fr
ontiers_2016.pdf [Accessed 17th
October].
 UNEP – United Nations Environment Programme (2016[b]). Summary of the
sixth global environment outlook – GEO-6: Regional assessments, key
findings and policy messages, UNEP/EA.2/INF/17. Available at:
http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/7644/-
Summary_of_the_sixth_global_Environment_Outlook_GEO-
6_Regional_assessments_Key_findings_and_policy_messages_UNEP_EA2_
INF_17-2016GEO-6_summary_en.p.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y
[Accessed 17th
October 2016].
 UNESCO (2014). The precautionary principle. Available at:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001395/139578e.pdf [Accessed 20th
October 2016].
 World Bank (2016). World development indicators database, 2014. Available
at: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/GDP.pdf [Accessed 19th
October 2016].
 Wrenn, C. (2016). Human supremacy, post-speciesist ideology, and the case
for anti-colonialist veganism. In: Moorehead, D. (ed.) Animals in Human
Society: Amazing Creatures Who Share Our Planet. Lanham, Maryland:
University Press of America, 55-58.