Animal Rights vs Welfare Reforms Reader

ANIMAL RIGHTS
vs WELFARE
REFORMS
an activist reader

Contents
The Need
- Eric Prescott 1
Promoting Animal Rights by Promoting Reform
- Peter Singer and Bruce Friedrich 4
Abolition of Animal Exploitation
- Gary L. Francione 8
The Odd Logic of Welfarism
- Bob Torres 25
From Cradle to Grave: The Facts Behind “Humane” Eating
- Colleen Patrick-Goudreau 30
Dishing Out the Bull: The Rise of the Excuse-itarians
- Colleen Patrick-Goudreau 34
Animal Rights “Welfarists”: An Oxymoron
- Joan Dunayer 39
The Hidden Cost of Selling the Public on “Cage-Free” Eggs
- James La Veck 43
Glossary 52
Further Information 53
Guiding Principles of Animal Rights 54

About this reader
This collection of articles has been compiled by Animal Rights
Advocates Inc. (ARA) to provide an abolitionist critique of animal
welfare approaches in animal advocacy. Feel free to photocopy and
distribute it as long as you maintain the original attributions.

The Need
- Eric Prescott

The animal rights “movement” has been diluted by welfare-oriented
advocacy to such an extent that the term “animal rights” has come
to be widely understood merely as a catch-all label that refers to
any activity carried out on behalf of animals, whether the activity is
related to the moral or legal rights of animals at all. Most often it is
not.
“Animal rights” advocacy has for years had little to do with the moral
rights of animals. Instead advocates have often focused on how
animals are treated. In other words, they have concerned themselves
with how humans treat their animal property, not whether or not the
animals are rightfully considered the property of others in the first
place.
For instance, the media and many activists frequently call efforts to
get hens out of battery cages “animal rights” campaigns, but these
activities are focused entirely on the treatment of animals (i.e., their
welfare), and not on their use (i.e., their right not to be used merely as
a means to human ends). Hens in cage-free operations still suffer and
are still bred, mutilated, confined, dominated, and killed for the sake
of human pleasure and convenience. These are trivial interests when
compared to a hen’s rather significant interest in staying alive.
Animal welfare campaigns do not address the underlying premise
that allows humans to take the lives of nonhumans at will: hens and

-1-

other animals belong to humans. Even if these campaigns succeed
in regulating a specific activity, like caging animals, many other
harms would continue to be permissible, and welfare advocates
would continue to push until they found themselves at a point where
average people simply didn’t see the harm anymore. After all, by
then they will have succeeded in getting rid of the most egregious
cruelties, which is all they ever cared about anyway.
Of course, even if reforms succeeded in ending every imaginable
physical form of abuse to nonhuman animals and their lives were all
terminated through some painless process, every animal on every
farm would still be unnecessarily--and thus unjustly--imprisoned and
killed, as the co-founder of the Vegan Society observed over 80 years
ago after visiting his Uncle George’s farm:
the idyllic scene was nothing more than Death Row, where every
creature’s days were numbered by the point at which it was no longer
of service to human beings.
Further, when a supposed “animal rights” group favors one type of
confinement or killing over another, it implicitly (and even explicitly)
condones using animals for human benefit (so long as it is done less
cruelly). This of course runs counter to animal rights advocacy, which
seeks to liberate hens and other nonhumans from human oppression
altogether.
It is vital that the core of the animal rights movement--the
abolitionists--reclaim “animal rights” for what it is. How? By widely and
clearly restating the animal rights position, which is what I intend to
do over the course of this series. As we come to understand the basis
for the human oppression of nonhuman animals and the changes
required to liberate those animals from this oppression, the path
forward becomes much more focused and even simpler than many
would have you believe.
By reclaiming, clarifying, and amplifying the abolitionist position on
animal rights, we draw attention to what we specifically mean when

-2-

we say “animal rights,” defining better for ourselves and others what
exactly it is we seek on behalf of nonhuman animals. In returning to
our basic mission, we refocus our efforts and the public eye on what
is ultimately at stake: the interests of nonhuman animals in not being
used exclusively as a means to human ends. That is an animal rights
movement.
After all, if we do not talk in terms of rights, then how can we even call
ourselves animal rights activists? By openly, actively, and intelligently
promoting animal rights and the abolition of animal exploitation, we
have the potential to move the dialogue on animal rights forward in a
meaningful way.
With greater clarity, precision, and stronger claims-making,
our movement will be more coherent as it strikes at the roots
of animal exploitation, rather than spending vast resources on
efforts for nonhuman beings that on the surface seem good, but
which ultimately do very little for them individually and may well
further entrench their status as property for humans to use for the
foreseeable future.
The goal of this series of posts, then, is in line with the mission
statement at Francione’s own website:
to provide a clear statement of a nonviolent approach to animal
rights that (1) requires the abolition of animal exploitation; (2) is
based only on sentience and no other cognitive characteristic, and (3)
regards veganism as the moral baseline of the abolitionist approach.

This article can be accessed in its original form at:
http://www.ananimalfriendlylife.com/2008/06/animal-rights-101-part-
one.html

-3-

The Longest Journey Begins with a Single
Step: Promoting Animal Rights by
Promoting Reform
- Peter Singer and Bruce Friedrich

This article was widely published as a reponse to increasing criticism of
welfarist approaches and is included here as a summary of the argument
put forward in favour of regulating animal exploitation as a strategy for
ending it.

In recent years, there has been an odd controversy in animal rights
circles as some activists fight against welfare reforms for farmed
animals. A few groups have gone so far as to argue against campaigns
for better slaughter practices for chickens, better living conditions
for hens, and have even picketed Whole Foods for trying to make
living and dying conditions better for the animals they sell. We find
this to be both curious and counterproductive to the goal of animal
liberation that we all share.
Not only is it possible to work for liberation while supporting
incremental change, such change is inevitable as we move toward
this goal. The vast majority of people, if they care about animals, will
support incremental improvements, even if the increments do not
liberate the animals. People are likely to progress in a way that causes
particularly abusive systems to be improved or eliminated before full
animal liberation is achieved.
If society says that animals have no rights or interests at all, moving

-4-

from that mentality to complete liberation will be impossible.
However, once society understands apes, chickens, pigs and other
animals have some interests that must be respected, that certain
things are not okay, the view of animals in society will change, and
bigger changes become possible. Now that some of the world’s
largest corporations are saying, “Yes, animals can suffer; this is a real
concern,” suddenly the discussion has moved to our playing field.
The philosophical argument granting chickens freedom from battery
cages also logically demands that we cease to exploit them for our
own ends.
The Animal Welfare Act (AWA), the Humane Slaughter Act (HSA) and
the recent concessions made by the fast food industry leave much
to be desired. But would animals be better off and liberation further
along if the animals suffer more while we fight for the ultimate goal?
Of course not.
If one were to believe what those who oppose welfare campaigns are
saying, one might imagine that before these reforms, large numbers
of people were refusing to eat meat, but now they have decided
that, because animals are not treated so badly, they can eat meat
again. That is not the case, of course. Rather than salve consciences,
passage of the AWA and HSA, as well as the advance of the fast food
campaigns, have placed the issue of cruelty to farmed animals before
millions of people as an important societal issue. That can only help to
advance the day we’re all striving toward.
As another example, look at countries where animals have no
protection from slaughter by the most inhumane methods. Sadly,
these countries also have few vegans and animal rights sympathizers.
If the anti-welfare reform camp were right, one would expect them to
have more vegetarians than countries like Britain, where animals are
better protected.

-5-

The Philosophy of Animal Liberation Demands That We Work for
and Support Reforms
Put yourself in a chicken’s place today: Would you prefer to live in the
horror you’re in, bred to grow seven times more quickly than natural
so that your bones splinter and your organs collapse, or would you
prefer to be able to live without chronic pain? Would you prefer to live
your life crammed into a small cage, unable to lift your wings, build a
nest, or do almost anything else that you would like to do, or would
you prefer to, at the very least, be able to walk? Would you prefer to
be hung upside-down by your feet and then scalded to death or lose
consciousness when the crate you are in passes through a controlled
atmosphere stunner? If, as we all believe, each individual animal
deserves to have her interests considered as an individual, then
welfare improvements are good. We can’t ignore the vast suffering of
these billions of animals for some hypothetical future goal.

Conclusion: Whose Side Are You On?
Fast food campaigns and the campaign to ban battery cages, which
have been heavily supported by the hard work of tens of thousands
of grassroots activists, have improved the lives and deaths of tens
of millions of animals. As the industries shift, the improvements will
apply to billions every year. As just one example, the stocking density
changes for hens, although meager, mean that conditions have gone
from 20 percent annual death rates to two to three percent annual
death rates; for all of the animals, this is a marked improvement.
Transport and slaughter standards for chickens are also a U.S. first,
and are improving lives and deaths for millions of animals annually—
billions once the entire industry is forced to shift.
People who denigrate the improvements that the fast food
corporations have implemented are not, we suspect, reading the
industry journals, which are filled with anger that the animal rights
movement has forced them to improve conditions. Nor are they

-6-

putting themselves in the place of the animals involved, whose living
and dying conditions have improved. It’s instructive, perhaps, to look
at who agrees and who disagrees. Those who oppose the reforms
implemented by Burger King and the others include the National
Chicken Council, the National Pork Producers’ Council, and every
other meat industry and anti-animal trade group.
We understand the appeal of battle cries such as “not bigger cages,
but empty cages.” But a bit of comfort and stimulation for an animal
who will be in that cage her whole life is something worth fighting for,
even as we demand empty cages. Not only is it the best thing for the
animals in the cages, it’s also the best thing for animal liberation. It’s
another stepping stone on the march.

Peter Singer is the author of Animal Liberation and professor of bioethics
at Princeton University. Bruce Friedrich is vice president for international
grassroots campaigns for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
(PETA), www.PETA.org.

http://www.satyamag.com/sept06/singer-friedrich.html

-7-

Abolition of Animal Exploitation:
The Journey Will Not Begin
While We Are Walking Backwards
- Gary L. Francione

This article was written in reponse to the Singer and Friedrich article on
the previous pages and argues (along with the rest of this reader) against
the use of regulation and welfare reforms to end the exploitation of
animals.

In The Longest Journey Begins with a Single Step: Promoting Animal
Rights by Promoting Reform (http://www.satyamag.com/sept06/
singer-friedrich.html), Peter Singer and PETA’s Bruce Friedrich claim
that an “odd” controversy has developed in “recent years” about
whether animal advocates ought to pursue animal welfare as a
means to achieve animal rights. This controversy is neither “odd” nor
“recent.” The controversy is not “odd” because there is a fundamental
inconsistency between the regulation of animal exploitation and its
abolition. The controversy is not “recent” in that the tension between
rights and welfare has been a constant in the animal advocacy
movement for the past fifteen years. What is “recent” is that there is
an emerging worldwide grassroots movement that is challenging
the hegemony of corporate animal welfare organizations that have
dominated the movement and that is attempting to formulate an
alternative, abolitionist paradigm. Therefore, it comes as no surprise
that Singer, who is the principal formulator of welfarist ideology, and
PETA, which implements that ideology and maintains that any dissent

-8-

or even discussion is “divisive” and threatens movement “unity,” are
expressing concern.
There are at least five reasons for an abolitionist to reject the welfarist
approach presented in the Singer/Friedrich essay.
1. Animal Welfare: Making Exploitation More Efficient
Singer and Friedrich claim that welfare reforms will recognize
that nonhumans have “rights” and “interests”-that the reforms will
incrementally move animals away from the status of being property
or commodities that have only extrinsic or conditional value. They are
wrong. The reforms they support have nothing to do with recognizing
that animals have morally significant interests that must be protected
even when there is no economic benefit for humans. For the most
part, these reforms, like most animal welfare measures, do nothing
but make animal exploitation more economically profitable for animal
exploiters and further enmesh animals in the property paradigm.
For example, consider the campaign that led to agreement by
McDonalds to require supposedly more “humane” standards for
slaughterhouses and increased space for battery hens. Singer
applauds these actions by McDonalds, which were followed by
Wendy’s and Burger King, as a “ray of hope” and “the first hopeful
signs for American farm animals since the modern animal movement
began.” (N.Y. Rev. of Books , May 15, 2003)
Friedrich claims that “[t]here’s been a real change in consciousness”
concerning the treatment of animals used for food ( L.A. Times , Apr.
29, 2003 ), and PETA’s Lisa Lange praises McDonalds as “’leading the
way’ in reforming the practices of fast-food suppliers, in the treatment
and killing of its beef and poultry.” ( L.A. Times , Feb. 23, 2005 )
The slaughterhouse standards praised by Singer and PETA were
developed by Temple Grandin , designer of “humane” slaughter and
handling systems. Grandin’s guidelines, which involve techniques
for moving animals through the slaughtering process and stunning

-9-

them, are based explicitly on economic concerns. According to
Grandin, proper handling of animals that are to be slaughtered
“keep[s] the meat industry running safely, efficiently and profitably.”
Proper stunning is important because it “will provide better meat
quality. Improper electric stunning will cause bloodspots in the
meat and bone fractures. . . . An animal that is stunned properly
will produce a still carcass that is safe for plant workers to work on.”
She maintains that “[g]entle handling in well-designed facilities will
minimize stress levels, improve efficiency and maintain good meat
quality. Rough handling or poorly designed equipment is detrimental
to both animal welfare and meat quality.” (www.grandin.com)
In discussing as a general matter the slaughter and battery-cage
improvements to which Singer and Friedrich refer, McDonalds states:
“Animals that are well cared for are less prone to illness, injury, and
stress, which all have the same negative impact on the condition of
livestock as they do on people. Proper animal welfare practices also
benefit producers. Complying with our animal welfare guidelines
helps ensure efficient production and reduces waste and loss. This
enables our suppliers to be highly competitive.” (www.mcdonalds.
com)
Wendy’s also emphasizes the efficiency of its animal welfare program:
“Studies have shown that humane animal handling methods not
only prevent needless suffering, but can result in a safer working
environment for workers involved in the farm and livestock industry.”
(www.wendys.com) In a report about voluntary reforms in the
livestock industry, the Los Angeles Times stated that “[i]n part, the
reforms are driven by self-interest. When an animal is bruised, its
flesh turns mushy and must be discarded. Even stress, especially right
before slaughter, can affect the quality of meat.” ( Apr. 29, 2003 )
This example (and there are many others) illustrates how the
producers of animal products-working with prominent animal
advocates-are becoming better at exploiting animals in an
economically efficient manner by adopting measures that improve
- 10 -

meat quality and worker safety. But this has absolutely nothing
to do with any recognition that animals have inherent value or
that they have interests that should be respected even when it
is not economically beneficial for humans to do so. Supposed
improvements in animal welfare are, for the most part, limited to and
justified by economic benefits for animal exploiters and consumers.
Moreover, large corporate animal exploiters can now point to the fact
that animal advocates such as Singer and PETA are praising them for
their supposedly “humane” treatment of nonhuman animals. PETA
quite remarkably presented its 2005 Visionary of the Year Award
to Grandin, who is a consultant to McDonalds and other fast-food
chains, for her “innovative improvements” in slaughtering processes
and PETA’s Ingrid Newkirk praises Grandin as having “done more to
reduce suffering in the world than any other person who has ever
lived.” ( New Yorker, Apr. 14, 2003 )
There is also serious doubt as to whether these changes actually
provide any significant improvement in animal treatment apart from
the issue of efficient exploitation. A slaughterhouse that follows
Grandin’s guidelines for stunning, prod use, and other aspects of the
killing process is still an unspeakably horrible place. Battery hens that
supply some of the major fast-food chains may now live in an area
that is equivalent to a square of approximately 8 ½ inches rather than
the industry standard-a square of approximately 7 inches-but it would
be nonsense to claim that the existence of a battery hen is anything
but miserable.
2. Animal Welfare: Making the Public More Comfortable About
Animal Exploitation
Singer and Friedrich claim with no support whatsoever that animal
welfare reforms will lead to greater protection for animals and then to
“animal liberation” (more on that below). We have had animal welfare
for about 200 years now, and there is no evidence whatsoever that
welfare reforms lead to significant protection for animal interests,
much less abolition. Indeed, we are using more nonhumans today,
- 11 -

and in more horrific ways, than at any time in human history. To the
extent that we have made marginal improvements in some aspects of
animal treatment, those improvements have, for the most part, been
limited to measures that make animal exploitation more profitable.
Although it is possible, in theory, to go beyond this minimal level
of animal protection, the status of nonhumans as property and the
resulting concern to maximize the value of animal property militate
strongly against significant improvement in our treatment of animals
and ensures that animal welfare will do little more than make animal
exploitation more economically efficient and socially acceptable. In
any case, the reforms that Singer and Friedrich propose, and that are
presently being promoted by the corporate welfare organizations in
the United States , do not go beyond the minimal level.
Singer and Friedrich claim that opponents of welfare are saying
“that before these reforms, large numbers of people were refusing
to eat meat, but now they have decided that, because animals are
not treated so badly, they can eat meat again.” Neither I nor any critic
of animal welfare of whom I am aware has ever said any such thing.
What I have said is that animal welfare has quite clearly not resulted
in large numbers of non-vegans changing their behavior and refusing
to eat meat or other animal products, and that welfare reforms are not
likely to lead in that direction anytime soon for the very reason that
they make people feel more comfortable about animal exploitation.
That comfort is the explicit message of the welfarist movement.
Animal advocates claim that we can “consume with conscience.” ( N.Y.
Times, Oct. 6, 2004 , statement of Paul Waldau) Indeed, in Singer’s
most recent book, The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter,
he and co-author Jim Mason claim that we can be “conscientious
omnivores” and exploit animals ethically if, for example, we choose
to eat only animals who have been well-cared for and then killed
without pain or distress.
The message that this approach sends is quite clear, and if Singer and
Friedrich really think that it does not encourage the consumption of

- 12 -

animal products, they are deluded. Moreover, welfare reforms may
increase demand and increase net animal suffering. The relationship
between increased demand and “humane” standards is recognized
by the welfarists themselves. For example, literature produced by
The Humane Society of the United States to promote its campaign
for more “humane” alternatives to the gestation crate for pigs states
explicitly that adoption of alternative systems may result in some
increased demand or market premium for producers.
I would like to share with you a story that, while anecdotal, illustrates
the problem. When the Whole Foods store near my house opened, it
sold meat products but did not have a meat department. There is now
a large fresh meat and fish department. There are also signs in the
store advertising the “Animal Compassion Foundation” established by
Whole Foods, which provides funding so that ranchers and farmers
can develop ways of raising their nonhumans more “humanely.”
Several weeks ago, I was walking by the meat counter and I remarked
to an employee standing there that I thought it was a shame that
Whole Foods sells corpses. The employee responded: “Did you know
that PETA gave an award to Whole Foods for how well they treat
animals?” Yes, that’s right. In addition to giving an award to Temple
Grandin , PETA has also lauded Whole Foods for “requiring that its
producers adhere to strict standards.” (www.peta.org ). The Way We
Eat features Whole Foods and has pages and pages of adoring praise
of the company as an ethically responsible seller of animal products.
Putting aside that there is some serious question as to whether the
“strict standards” that PETA and others praise have any meaningful
effect on the lives and deaths of the animals whose corpses are
sold at Whole Foods (a forthcoming article from Professor Darian
Ibrahim at the University of Arizona maintains that the standards
are lacking), this sort of approach can only encourage confusion
where there should be clarity and encourages people to believe
that we can “consume with conscience,” which serves to perpetuate-
and legitimate-the consumption of animal products. In the words

- 13 -

of a reviewer of The Way We Eat on Amazon.com: “You don’t have to
become a vegetarian or even a vegan, although becoming one could
be a good way to live, both healthwise and morally, but the book
sure makes you want to shop at Whole Foods and to buy free range
chickens and to do whatever you can to make your food supply come
from a decent source.”
3. The Goal? What Goal?
Singer and Friedrich talk about how welfare promotes “animal rights”
and claim that opposition to animal welfare is “counterproductive to
the goal of animal liberation that we all share.” Exactly what goal is it
that we all share?
Singer is a utilitarian who has consistently rejected moral rights for
both nonhumans and humans although he confusingly uses rights
language when it is convenient. So from the outset, those who
maintain that humans have certain moral rights, such as a right not to
be enslaved or used as a commodity by others, do not share Singer’s
goal as far as humans are concerned. As for nonhumans, Singer is not
opposed to use per se of most animals; he is concerned only about
treatment. To the extent that he discusses use, it is only in the context
of a concern that we may not be able to assure adequate treatment.
But his goal is not the abolition of all animal exploitation; given
Singer’s general moral theory, abolition cannot be his goal. Singer
has maintained consistently that most nonhumans do not have an
interest in continuing to live because they are not self-aware in the
same sense that normal humans are and, as a result, they do not care
whether we use them; they only care about how we use them. This
reflects the views of Jeremy Bentham, the 19th century utilitarian
on whom Singer bases his theory. Bentham argued that although
animals could suffer and, therefore, mattered morally, animals do not
care whether, for instance, we eat them. They care only about how we
treat them until we eat them.
This view-that it is not use per se but only treatment-is the foundation

- 14 -

of animal welfare ideology and differs from the animal rights position
as I have articulated it. I maintain that if animals have an interest in
continued existence-and I argue that any sentient being does-then
our use of them as human resources-however “humanely” we treat
them-cannot be defended morally and that we should seek to abolish
and not regulate animal exploitation. I also argue that Singer is wrong
to maintain that it is possible to accord equal consideration to any
interests that he acknowledges animals do have as long as they are
human property. The interests of property will almost always be
regarded as weighing less than the interests of property owners.
You do not have to get deeply into philosophy, however, to assess
the nature of Singer’s “animal liberation.” Singer’s most recent book
not only maintains that we can ethically eat animals and animal
products, but it also has a disclosure that should inform our views
about Singer and his views about violence toward nonhumans. In
The Way We Eat , Singer and Mason tell us that they learned that a
turkey factory needed workers to assist in artificial insemination. “Our
curiosity piqued, we decided to see for ourselves what this work really
involved.” Singer and Mason spent a day “collecting the semen and
getting it into the hen” They caught and restrained the male turkeys
while another worker “squeezed the tom’s vent until it opened up
and the white semen oozed forth. Using a vacuum pump, he sucked
it into a syringe.” Singer and Mason then had to “’break’” the hens,
which involved restraining the hen “so that her rear is straight up and
her vent open.” (28) The inseminator then inserted a tube into the hen
and used a blast of compressed air to insert the semen into the hen’s
oviduct.
And it wasn’t just the turkeys who had an unpleasant time. Singer and
Mason complain that their day at the turkey factory was “the hardest,
fastest, dirtiest, most disgusting, worst-paid work we have ever done.
For ten hours we grabbed and wrestled birds, jerking them upside
down, facing their pushed-open assholes, dodging their spurting
shit, while breathing air filled with dust and feathers stirred up by

- 15 -

panicked birds.” All that, and they “received a torrent of verbal abuse
from the foreman. We lasted one day.” (29) One wonders whether
Singer and Mason would have returned for a second day if the
working conditions had been better.
It is deeply disturbing that Singer and Mason regard it as morally
acceptable to engage in violence against nonhumans for any
purpose, particularly to satisfy their curiosity about what “this work
really involved.” I suggest that there is no non-speciesist way to justify
what Singer and Mason claim to have done without also justifying
the rape of a woman, or the molestation of a child, in order to see
what those acts of violence “really involved.” Perhaps Singer’s perverse
actions with the turkeys can be explained by his claim in 2001 on
Nerve.com that “sex with animals does not always involve cruelty” and
that we can have “mutually satisfying” sexual contact with animals. In
any event, if violence against nonhumans is permitted under Singer’s
theory, we do not need to know much more before concluding that
the theory has some very serious flaws and his goals are probably not
ones that, as Singer thinks, we share.
As for the goals of Friedrich and PETA, one thing that has become
clear over the years is that PETA’s understanding of “animal rights” is,
to say the least, idiosyncratic. To cite one example of many, no theory
of animal rights of which I am aware would sanction the mass killing
of healthy nonhumans, as occurred at PETA’s Aspen Hill “sanctuary”
in 1991, or, more recently at PETA corporate headquarters and by
PETA employees who allegedly used deception to obtain healthy
animals who were subsequently killed and dumped. I suppose that if
you agree with Singer-that the animals that PETA killed did not have
an interest in their lives, but only wanted a “kind” or “compassionate”
death-this makes sense to you. I, however, would disagree.
When animal advocates question the corporate welfarists, the stock
reply is to say that we all have the same goal, we are all working for
the animals, and that dissent or discussion will threaten the unity
of the movement. Like “compassionate consumption,” the notion
- 16 -

of “movement unity” is a fiction that is used to maintain control
of discourse and strategy. There is no movement “unity” because
there is an irreconcilable difference between the abolitionist/rights
position and the regulation/welfare position, between those who
maintain that we should be as “fanatical” (to use Singer’s disparaging
description) about speciesism as we are about human exploitation,
and those, like Singer, who do not. Proclamations about movement
“unity” are simply another way of telling advocates not to question
the control of the movement by corporate welfarists.
4. Animal Welfare or Nothing: The False Dichotomy
Singer and Friedrich maintain that those who are concerned about
nonhumans have two choices: pursue animal welfare or do nothing
to help animals. The implication here is that the abolitionist position
is too idealistic and cannot provide a strategy to pursue for the short
term. This is a standard ploy of welfarists and it is not clear to me
whether they really believe this, or if it is just a slogan. In any event,
Singer and Friedrich present us with a false dichotomy.
We are inflicting pain, suffering, and death on billions of nonhumans
every year. No one-including the most convinced abolitionist-
maintains that we can stop that overnight or, indeed, anytime soon.
The issue that confronts the advocate is what to do now . Moreover,
we live in a world of limited time and limited resources. We cannot
do everything. So the issue-at least for those whose goal is abolition-
becomes: what do we choose to do now that will reduce suffering
most in the short-term, that is consistent with the abolitionist
approach, and that will build a political movement for further change
in the abolitionst direction?
I would suggest that welfarism is not the rational choice for the
abolitionist. It is a bit late in the game to promote animal welfare
as the “single step” that will start on us on our long journey. We
have spent billions of dollars and what do we have to show for it? I
submit that the answer is: nothing and certainly nothing that could

- 17 -

be described as an effective use of our limited resources. Singer and
Friedrich cite the Animal Welfare Act (a federal law in the United
States that purports to regulate the use of nonhumans in experiments
and exhibition) and the U.S. Humane Slaughter Act as examples of
welfarist laws that would leave animals worse-off if we did not have
them. I disagree.
The Animal Welfare Act, which does not even apply to 90% of the
nonhumans used in experiments, imposes no real substantive limits
on what vivisectors can do with animals in the laboratory. The Act
does, however, provide a resource for the research community and
for people like Singer and Friedrich to point to in order to assure the
public that there is regulation of vivisection. The Humane Slaughter
Act, which also does not even apply to most animals who we eat,
is, in any event, focused on reducing carcass damage and ensuring
worker safety. Again, the primary purpose of the Act is to make
consumers feel more comfortable. The Act does not require much
more protection than a rational property owner would provide in the
first place, and there have been countless instances in which the U.S.
government does not enforce the Act.
Singer and Friedrich also cite as an example of the progress of animal
welfare that “the stocking density changes for hens, although meager,
mean that conditions have gone from 20% percent annual death rates
to two or three percent annual death rates.” This is particularly bizarre
in that 100% of the chickens will ultimately be killed. Any reduction
in deaths before the slaughterhouse keeps the birds alive longer in
horrible conditions and increase profit for exploiters. So welfarists
have succeeded in educating exploiters about how to, in McDonalds’s
words “ ensure efficient production and reduce waste and loss.” Singer
and Friedrich may find this exciting. I do not.
So what can an abolitionist do now that will reduce suffering more
effectively in the short term and is consistent with the abolitionist
end? The abolitionist approach provides practical guidance in a
number of respects. The most important form of incremental change
- 18 -

is the decision by the individual to become vegan. Veganism, or the
eschewing of all animal products, is more than a matter of diet or
lifestyle; it is a political and moral statement in which the individual
accepts the principle of abolition in her own life. Veganism is the one
truly abolitionist goal that we can all achieve-and we can achieve
it immediately, starting with our next meal. If we are ever going to
effect any significant change in our treatment of animals and to one
day end that use, it is imperative that there be a social and political
movement that actively seeks abolition and regards veganism as
part of the moral baseline. There is, of course, no rational distinction
between meat and other animal products, such as eggs or dairy, or
between fur and leather, silk, or wool.
Most national animal advocacy organizations focus on animal welfare
even if they pay lip service to veganism. An excellent example of
this is PETA. On one hand, PETA purports to encourage veganism.
On the other hand, PETA’s campaigns are, for the most part, focused
on traditional welfare regulation and PETA actively and confusingly
promotes the concept of “humanely” produced animal products.
There is, however, no sense in which veganism is promoted as a
moral baseline of the movement. Rather, veganism is presented
merely as an optional lifestyle choice and is often portrayed as being
difficult and only for the committed few rather than as an easy way to
eliminate exploitation. That is, the corporate movement, many of the
“leaders” of which are not themselves vegan, itself sets up the vegan/
abolition position as the “fringe” or “radical” position, making the
“normal” or “mainstream” position the one where we try to “consume
with compassion.” Indeed, Singer claims that we “don’t have to be
fanatical” about food issues, and “[a] little self-indulgence, if you
can keep it under firm control,” is acceptable. ( The Way We Eat , 281,
283) We would, of course, never say that “a little self-indulgence” is
acceptable where rape, murder, child molestation, or other forms
of human exploitation, are involved, but the so-called “father of the
animal rights movement” assures us that “a little self-indulgence”

- 19 -

in participating as consumers in the brutal killing of nonhumans
is nothing to worry over. It is acceptable-indeed, expected-to be
“fanatical” about not molesting children or other serious forms of
human exploitation, but Singer tells us that it is acceptable to be
flexible when it comes to nonhuman exploitation.
A movement that seeks abolition must have veganism as a baseline
principle and should not have as its “mainstream” position that we can
be “conscientious omnivores” who can “consume with compassion.”
We must be clear. “Compassionate” consumption is an insidious myth.
All animal products, including those insidiously stamped “Certified
Humane Raised and Handled” by various corporate animal welfarist
organizations, involve unspeakable brutality.
Veganism and abolitionist education, including boycotts, peaceful
demonstrations, school programs, and other non-violent acts
aimed at informing the public about the moral, environmental, and
health dimensions of veganism and abolition provide practical and
incremental strategies both in terms of reducing animal suffering now
and in terms of building a movement in the future that will be able to
obtain more meaningful legislation in the form of prohibitions rather
than mere “humane” regulation. If, in the late-1980s-when the animal
advocacy community in the United States decided very deliberately
to pursue a welfarist agenda-a substantial portion of movement
resources had been invested in vegan education and advocacy, there
would likely be hundreds of thousands more vegans than there are
today. That is a very conservative estimate given the hundreds of
millions of dollars that have been expended by animal advocacy
groups to promote welfarist legislation and initiatives. The increased
number of vegans would reduce suffering more by decreasing
demand for animal products than all of the welfarist “successes” put
together and multiplied ten-fold. Increasing the number of vegans
would also help to build a political and economic base necessary
for more pervasive social change as a necessary predicate for legal
change. Given that there is limited time and there are limited financial

- 20 -

resources available, expansion of traditional animal welfare is not a
rational and efficient choice if we seek abolition in the long term or
even if we only seek reduction of animal suffering in the shorter term.
Singer claims that the reality is that “going vegan is still too big a
step for most.”(The Way We Eat , 279) Putting aside the fact that more
people might be inclined to go vegan if Singer and the corporate
welfare movement were not telling them that they can consume
animal products “with compassion,” the solution is incremental
veganism, not “humane” animal products. For example, a campaign
to get people to eat one vegan meal a day, and then two, and then
three, is much better than encouraging them to eat “free range” meat,
eggs, or dairy at all three meals. But the message should be clear:
veganism, and not “compassionate consumption,” is the baseline
principle of a movement that promotes abolition.
At this point in time, it is unlikely that most legislative or regulatory
campaigns that seek to go beyond traditional welfare reform are
going to be successful; there is no political base to support such
reforms because the corporate movement has not sought to build
one. If, however, advocates wish to pursue such campaigns, they
should at the very least involve prohibitions and not regulations.
These prohibitions should recognize that animals have interests
that go beyond those that must be protected in order to exploit the
animals and cannot be compromised for economic reasons. At no
point should animal advocates propose alternative, supposedly more
“humane” substitutes. For example, a prohibition on the use of all
animals in a particular sort of experiment is to be preferred over the
substitution in the experiment of one species for another. But I want
to be clear that I do not favor investing any resources in legislative or
regulatory campaigns at this time. The political compromise required
usually results in evisceration of the benefit sought. Rather, the
abolitionist movement should focus on veganism, which is a much
more practical and effective way to reduce animal exploitation.
I stress that the abolitionist movement should embrace a non-violent
- 21 -

approach, both on the level of individual interactions and as a matter
of movement ideology. As I have long argued, the animal rights
movement should see itself as the next step in the progress of the
peace movement; as a movement that takes the rejection of injustice
to the next step. The problem of animal exploitation is complicated
and involves roots that go deep into our patriarchal culture and our
disturbing tolerance for violence against the vulnerable. Not only is
violence problematic as a moral matter, it is unsound as a practical
strategy. We will never address the problem successfully by using
violence to try to create a social movement in favor of abolition. As
Mohandas Gandhi maintained, the most powerful force with which
to oppose injustice is not violence but non-cooperation. There is no
better way to refuse to cooperate with the exploitation of nonhumans
than to eliminate it from your own life through veganism and work to
educate others to do the same. It is disturbing that PETA spends much
more time criticizing those who oppose the welfarist approach than
it does those who will only marginalize the animal issue further by
associating it with violence.
It is also disturbing to see the extent to which PETA uses sexism in
its campaigns, literature, and events. Speciesism is closely tied to
sexism and other forms of discrimination against humans. As long
as we continue treating women like meat, we are going to continue
treating nonhumans as meat. It is high time that serious animal
advocates make clear to PETA that its sexism is destructive and
counterproductive.
5. “Whose Side Are You On?” Good Question.
Singer and Friedrich end their essay by asking: “Whose Side Are You
On?” They tell us that the animal exploiters all oppose animal welfare
and ask whether we want to be on the side of the animal exploiters
who oppose animal welfare or on the side of Singer and Friedrich,
who support animal welfare. This question by Singer and Friedrich is
problematic in at least two respects.

- 22 -

First, it assumes that if animal exploiters oppose animal welfare, it
must be because animal welfare is really harmful to animal exploiters.
That is nonsense and indicates either naivety or disingenuousness.
An industry may oppose regulation even when it does not really
oppose it and even when the regulation may benefit it. A case
in point involves the federal Animal Welfare Act amendment of
1985, which created “animal care committees” to monitor animal
experiments. These committees have not only failed to provide any
meaningful limitation of animal experiments, they have effectively
insulated vivisection from public scrutiny more than it was before
1985. Vivisectors publicly opposed the 1985 amendment although I
had many vivisectors tell me privately that the amendment was, on
balance, not harmful for the practice of animal use. They opposed it
because they oppose the principle of any governmental regulation
of animal use. It would be difficult to find a vivisector who would say,
with a straight face, that the 1985 amendment has done anything
to restrict vivisection, and many are delighted that they can now
assure the public that there is a committee that reviews all animal
experiments.
Second, Singer and Friedrich are wrong factually in that a number
of large animal exploiters openly and publicly embrace the welfare
reforms that Singer and Friedrich applaud. McDonalds and others
have done so because they understand that they got a bargain.
They made minimal changes that were more than offset by the
great publicity that they got from prominent animal welfarists. A
shareholder of these companies would be justified in complaining if
they did not take the “deal” that PETA and others offered as it can only
maximize shareholder wealth.
Although I generally do not think that questions such as “whose side
are you on” are helpful, I am going to make an exception in this case
and ask the same question. Here goes:
• Singer maintains that animal use per se does not raise a moral issue
because most nonhumans do not have an interest in continuing to
- 23 -

live;
• Singer maintains that we can consume animals in an ethical
manner;
• Singer regards inflicting violence on nonhumans as an acceptable
way of learning about animal exploitation;
• PETA kills (“euthanizes” is the wrong word because it implies a
death that is in the interest of the animal) thousands of healthy
animals because PETA apparently accepts Singer’s view that
animals do not have a fundamental and morally important interest
in continuing to live. “Animal rights” means “humane” executions.
• PETA promotes campaigns that are embraced by corporate animal
exploiters, and gives awards to animal exploiters.
• PETA has thoroughly trivialized the animal rights movement
by turning the issue of animal exploitation into one large, self-
promoting media stunt, and has made sexism a constant theme of
its animal campaigns.
So whose side are you on?

Gary L. Francione is Distinguished Professor of Law and Nicholas deB.
Katzenbach Scholar of Law and Philosophy at Rutgers University School
of Law-Newark. He is well known throughout the animal protection
movement for his criticism of animal welfare law and the property status
of nonhuman animals, and for his abolitionist theory of animal rights.
His blog can be viewed at: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/

http://www.abolitionist-online.com/article-issue05_gary.francione_
abolition.of.animal.exploitation.2006.shtml

- 24 -

The Odd Logic of Welfarism
- Bob Torres

If a man abuses his wife, do we ask him to stop, or do we throw our
hands up in exasperation, saying that if he’s going to do it, he should
at least not hit so damn hard?
Similarly, if a person is going to eat meat, do we ask him to stop, or do
we throw our hands up in exasperation, saying that if you’re going to
eat meat, at least eat free range?
My comparison will probably offends and anger some of you, but I
assure you, that’s not my intent. Over the last few weeks, I’ve been
thinking seriously about the question of animal welfare activism
versus a more abolitionist activism, and I’ve been torn. Just recently,
I helped a few students at my school with the HSUS campaign to
switch dining services to battery-cage free eggs. I was secretly torn
from the start, but I helped despite my reservations. The real moment
of cognitive dissonance for me came when I was actually in the
position of relaying information about egg producers to the school,
talking about extended shelf life and shipping time.
As I sent an email to one of the people in charge of dining services at
my school with some of this information, I had a sinking feeling: here
I was, actually facilitating the exploitation of hens by encouraging
egg consumption. It made me think: I’ve committed myself to the
abolition of animal exploitation and to veganism, and I was actually in
the position of helping facilitate the consumption of eggs. I assuaged

- 25 -

my conscience by telling myself that this was better for the hens,
and that perhaps this was a step in the right direction of animal
consciousness for people at our school. I also thought it important
to back the students at my school who were taking tentative steps
into activism. As I gave it more thought, though, I realized that this
was exactly the wrong tactic, and that I wasn’t being true to what I
believed.
Welfarism is accepting defeat before we’ve even begun the battle.
To me, welfarism accepts as a premise that our other activism and
outreach—genuine vegan and abolitionist outreach—can’t be
effective enough, and so trades this for measures which (though
they may decrease suffering) actually reify the condition of animals
as beings that we can exploit. In a twisted sense, then, welfarism
encourages the consumption of animal products. It does nothing to
challenge the notion that animals are ours to do with as we please,
and it makes for odd bedfellows. We end up with groups that have
stated abolitionist ideological positions teaming up with companies,
firms, and producers who are in the business of exploitation. It makes
us as a movement look contradictory when we’re calling for the
abolition of animal exploitation and at the same time, encouraging
the exploitation of animals. It is justifying slavery by asking for longer
chains; it is asking the abuser to abuse more gently; it is not true to
what we profess to believe.
Critics, of course, will accuse me of the comfort of putting my
ideological purity ahead of the near-term interests of animals to
be free of suffering. This, however, isn’t the case. If we’re to have
a movement that means anything at all, we need to make the
movement look like the end that we hope to achieve. We can’t
simultaneously be anti-racist and hope to end racism by telling
slightly less offensive racist jokes, just like we can’t hope to be
effective anti-speciesists by simultaneously promoting nicer
speciesism. The means to the end of abolition matter. If our means
don’t look like our ends, we’re only helping to incrementally re-create
- 26 -

a world that’s speciesist.
I know that the world won’t go vegan tomorrow, and I know that the
welfare argument depends on incrementalism: for example, that we
need to take small steps towards helping people see that animals
shouldn’t be exploited. Incrementalism is a natural response to the
overwhelming speciesism in our world now, and I understand it.
But our incrementalism should be that of reduction of meat, eggs,
dairy, honey, and other products of animal exploitation from our
diets. Effective vegan activism could potentially mean more lives
saved and greater strides for animals than measures which confine
animals to slightly bigger cages, or more airy barns. Welfarism stalls
incremental movement towards veganism, however. How many of us
have met people that respond to our veganism with the hollow “Well,
I eat free range…” argument? How many people actually get stuck
there? And can we assume that welfarism actually works to limit the
consumption and exploitation of animals? The evidence would seem
to indicate that it doesn’t. Welfarism has formed the backbone of
animal advocacy for at least the last two decades in the US, yet we’ve
seen the numbers of animals consumed in that time rise by billions.
If welfarism worked as promised to limit consumption of animals and
spurn people into awareness, wouldn’t we see that number actually
go down? If free-range and cage-free and all the other welfarist
measures actually decreased the consumption of animal products,
why would markets like Whole Foods base so much of their business
on these lucrative niche markets?
In one of those odd moments of synchronicity, I also found myself
this week preparing a book proposal and reading a variety of sources
for that proposal. In reading the book Speciesism, I came across an
argument that hits at the very heart of what I’m discussing here, and
it helped me to clarify my thinking on this topic tremendously (I also
spent an afternoon re-reading Gary Francione’s Rain Without Thunder
which does an incredible job of examining the same dynamics).
This quote caught my attention in the chapter about “old speciesist

- 27 -

advocacy”:
“Some activists who consider themselves advocates of veganism
condone eating honey or applaud people for limiting their egg
consumption to “free-range eggs” and their cow-flesh consumption
to “grass-fed beef.” Eating honey, eggs, or cow flesh isn’t vegan, so
endorsing their consumption isn’t veganism advocacy. Veganism
advocates urge people not to eat any honey, eggs, or flesh. Nonvegans
need to phase out or immediately eliminate animal-derived foods, not
substitute some for others. It’s easy to avoid eating honey, eggs, and
flesh, including as ingredients. Suggesting otherwise impedes, rather
than advances, veganism.”
She continues on to talk about how only one group—Friends of
Animals—urged Whole Foods to phase out or end its sale of animal
products after the CEO John Mackey announced that he became
vegan. She wondered whether other groups thought the request
too unlikely to succeed, or if others weren’t willing to speak against
the welfarist standards instituted by Whole Foods and its suppliers.
Dunayer emphasizes that “Such standards don’t advance veganism or
nonhuman emancipation. They legitimize enslavement and slaughter.
Only veganism respects nonhuman rights and rejects nonhuman
enslavement.” (emphasis mine)
It is that last point that I agree with most heartily—veganism is
the way to live abolition in your daily life. Veganism is a political
act illustrating how the consumption and abuse of animals is not
acceptable. Unlike welfarist measures, veganism is not at conflict
with the ends of our movement: it is living what we want our world
to be. On the flip side, welfarism turns us into advocates for people
who would abuse and torture animals for profit, with the exception
that these particular abusers are a bit nicer. Nice enslavement is still
enslavement, and for all that welfarism has promised, we have little to
show but more and more animals being consumed.
It seems time that we reconsider the odd logic of welfarism.

- 28 -

Bob Torres is assistant professor of Sociology at St. Lawrence University
and co-author of Vegan Freak: Being Vegan in a Non-Vegan World. He
blogs and co-hosts a weekly radio show at veganfreak.com.

http://www.satyamag.com/sept06/torres.html

- 29 -

From Cradle to Grave:
The Facts Behind “Humane” Eating
- Colleen Patrick-Goudreau

I have yet to meet a non-vegetarian who didn’t care about the
treatment of animals raised and killed for human consumption. Even
people who eat meat, aware on some level that the experience is
unpleasant for the animals, will tell you they object to unnecessary
abuse and cruelty. They declare that they buy only “humane” meat,
“free-range” eggs and “organic” milk, perceiving themselves as ethical
consumers and these products as the final frontier in the fight against
animal cruelty. Though we kill over 10 billion land animals every year
to please our palates, we never question the absurdity of this sacred
societal ritual. Instead, we absolve ourselves by making what we think
are guilt-free choices, failing to recognize the paradox of “humane
slaughter” and never really knowing what the whole experience is for
an animal from cradle (domestication) to grave (our bodies).
Though modern animal factories look nothing like what is idealized
in children’s books and advertisements, there are also many
misconceptions about the practices and principles of a “humane”
operation. The unappetizing process of turning live animals into
isolated body parts and ground-up chunks of flesh begins at birth
and ends in youth, as the animals are babies when they are sent to
slaughter, whether they are raised conventionally or in operations
that are labeled “humane,” “sustainable,” “natural,” “free-range,” “cage-
free,” “heritage-bred,” “grass-fed” or “organic.”

- 30 -

Whether it is a large or small enterprise, manipulating animals’
reproductive systems for human gain is at the heart of the animal
agriculture industry. The keeping of male studs, the stimulation of
the genitals, the collection of semen, the castrating of males, and
the insemination into the female are not exactly on people’s minds
when they sit down to dine. Many animals endure the stressful, often
painful, and humiliating process of artificial insemination. Dairy
cows are strapped into what the industry terms a “rape rack;” “natural
turkeys” have to be artificially inseminated because their breasts are
so large they’re unable to mate in the usual manner; and “free-range”
egg farms perpetuate unthinkable cruelty by buying their hens from
egg hatcheries that kill millions of day-old male chicks every year.

Dying to Live
Many who speak of “humane” meat are really referring to the
conditions under which animals are raised—not killed. And there’s a
big difference. When their bodies are fat enough for the dinner table,
spent and overused from producing eggs and milk, and no longer
useful in the way they were meant to be, as in the case of male studs
on dairy farms, animals from both conventional and “humane” farms
are all transported (first to the feedlot in the case of “beef cattle”) to
the slaughterhouse. The transportation process is excruciating and
often fatal. The only law designed to “protect” animals in transport
is weak, forcing them to endure oppressive heat, bitter cold, stress,
overcrowding, and respiratory problems from ammonia-laden urine.
Regardless of how they’re raised, all animals killed for the refrigerated
aisles of the grocery store are sent to mechanized slaughterhouses
where their lives are brutally ended. By law, animals must be
slaughtered at certified facilities, where horrific acts of cruelty
occur on a daily basis. Everyone from federal meat inspectors to
slaughterhouse workers have admitted to routinely witnessing the
strangling, beating, scalding, skinning, and butchering of live, fully

- 31 -

conscious animals.
When we tell ourselves we’re eating meat from “humanely raised
animals,” we’re leaving out a huge part of the equation. The
slaughtering of an animal is a bloody and violent act, and death does
not come easy for those who want to live.

Born to Die
As much as we don’t want to believe we are the cause of someone
else’s suffering, our consumption of meat, dairy, eggs and other
animal products perpetuates the pointless violence and unnecessary
cruelty that is inherent in the deliberate breeding and killing of
animals for human consumption. If we didn’t have a problem with it,
we wouldn’t have to make up so many excuses and justifications. We
dance around the truth, label our choices “humane,” and try to find
some kind of compromise so we can have our meat and eat it, too.
The fundamental problems we keep running into do not arise merely
from how we raise animals but that we eat animals. Clearly we can
survive—and in fact, thrive—on a plant-based diet; we don’t need to
kill animals to be healthy, and in fact animal fat and protein are linked
with many human diseases. What does it say about us that when
given the opportunity to prevent cruelty and violence, we choose
to turn away—because of tradition, culture, habit, convenience or
pleasure? We are not finding the answers we are looking for because
we are asking the wrong questions.
The movement toward “humanely raised food animals” simply
assuages our guilt more than it actually reduces animal suffering.
If we truly want our actions to reflect the compassion for animals
we say we have, then the answer is very simple. We can stop eating
them. How can this possibly be considered anything but a rational
and merciful response to a violent and vacuous ritual? Every animal
born into this world for his or her flesh, eggs or milk—only to be killed

- 32 -

for human pleasure—has the same desire for maternal comfort and
protection, the same ability to feel pain, and the same impulse to
live as any living creature. There’s nothing humane about breeding
animals only to kill them, and there’s nothing humane about ending
the life of a healthy animal in his or her youth. In short, there is
nothing humane about eating meat.

Colleen Patrick-Goudreau founded Compassionate Cooks (www.
compassionatecooks.com) to empower people to make informed food
choices and to debunk myths about eating vegan. Through cooking
classes, podcasts, articles, and her first-of-its-kind cooking DVD, she
shares the joys and benefits of a plant-based diet. She can be reached at
colleen@compassionatecooks.com.

http://www.satyamag.com/sept06/goudreau.html

- 33 -

Dishing Out the Bull:
The Rise of the Excuse-itarians
- Colleen Patrick-Goudreau

I’ve heard every excuse in the book for eating animals, but I’ve yet
to hear a convincing reason. It’s a pretty simple equation: since
humans don’t need to consume animals to survive, killing them
simply to satisfy our taste buds amounts to senseless slaughter. But
our eating habits and appetites have very deep roots, and we prefer
convenience over conscience. With a determination that belies
an irrational attachment to animal flesh and secretions, otherwise
sensible and sensitive people spend time and energy concocting
outrageous excuses to justify this unnecessary habit. Using lyrical and
exalted language, they extol the virtues of tradition, glorify the need
to conserve “heritage breeds,” and wax poetic about our “evolutionary
heritage.” With “humane meat” gaining popularity, non-vegetarians
have co-opted the ethical argument. They are winning, but it’s not the
vegetarians who are losing. It’s the animals.

Consecrating Cruelty
I live in the capital of “sustainable food,” where Alice Waters and
Michael Pollan have practically been canonized, and “ethical ranchers”
are idolized. Though I agree with the need to support local farmers
and educate the public about the corporate take-over of our food
supply, I worry sometimes that the proponents of the “sustainable/
humane meat” philosophy are going to hurt themselves patting each

- 34 -

other on the back. Despite the fact that they’re responsible for the
needless killing of animals, who, if given the choice, would choose to
live, they’re lauded for their “ethical eating.” I wonder: if it’s considered
ethical to eat the bodies of animals who are harmed a little less before
their throats are slit, isn’t it still more ethical to not end their lives at
all?
Affixed with meaningless labels that make it seem as if the animals
sacrificed themselves for the pleasure of humans, the Holy Triumvirate
of meat, dairy and eggs remains the sacred foundation of the human
diet, regarded as more of a right than a privilege. The marketing
that surrounds these “products” suggests that not eating meat is
downright un-American. Grist, the popular environmental magazine,
self-righteously suggested that vegans fast on Thanksgiving, since
vegans are merely “mimicking dominant culture” by serving an
“atrocious and non-local tofu log.” Those who argue that we should
eat meat because it’s traditional seem to imply that the meat-eater’s
desires, traditions, culture or taste buds are superior to anything—or
anyone—else. Just because we’ve always done something doesn’t
mean it’s the right thing to do. Culture and tradition are not excuses
for cruelty.

Eating Them to Save Them
Perhaps the most audacious example of how the “humane meat”
proponents have so adeptly usurped the ethics of eating is in the
case of “heritage breed” animals. The self-congratulatory founders
and followers of Slow Food USA and Heritage Foods USA commend
themselves for saving these “delicious American treasures” from the
“brink of extinction” and declare, “we must eat them to save them.”
The idea is that by creating a marketplace for these (dead) animals,
they are, in effect, saving their lives. That kind of doublespeak would
make George Orwell proud. When Michael Pollan boasts how he
and his Thanksgiving guests, feasting on a “heritage breed” turkey,

- 35 -

were “in some small way contributing to its survival,” I wonder how
so intelligent a man can’t detect the absurdity of such a statement.
I’m stating the obvious when I say that if they really cared about
those breeds, there are ways to protect them without killing and
eating them. That’s not to say they don’t care. They do. But ultimately
what they care about is how the animals taste, and they use sensual,
lyrical language to describe it: the “complex, succulent flavors” that
“echo a bygone era”; the delicate herbaceousness of the meat [that]
is like an edible postcard from the animal’s hometown.” I’ve even
heard “humane meat” consumers attribute the superior taste of the
“steaks” to the fact that the ranchers “say a prayer for each cow before
they slaughter it.” The romanticizing of something so ugly belies a
desperate attempt to deny the truth.

Abdicating Responsibility
One of most ludicrous justifications I’ve heard is that we did animals
a favor by domesticating them, having created a “mutual agreement”
that protects animals from their natural predators and grants humans
the gift of the animals’ flesh and secretions in return—an arrogantly
anthropocentric perspective that echoes the sentiments of slave
masters. Unless we remove the cages, fences, tethers and barbed
wire, I’m apt to believe the animals aren’t consulted in this “mutual
agreement.”
While congratulating themselves for protecting domesticated
animals from the cruelties of nature, these same people defend the
human consumption of other animals on the basis that we’re simply
“part of the food chain.” I’m always fascinated by this particular
rationalization, particularly because in the meat-eater’s depiction of
the “food chain,” humans are always at the top—never the predatory
animals for whom humans are prey. I’ve yet to see someone adhere
so strongly to the principles of the “food chain” that they simply shrug
it off when they hear of a carnivore—a true carnivore, that is, not a

- 36 -

human identifying as a carnivore—attacking or eating a human. The
“food chain” argument isn’t convenient when taken to this logical
conclusion, but it is convenient when it’s used to justify our own
behavior.
Related to this argument is the one declaring that early humans ate
animals, in order to justify us eating them now. Michael Pollan even
charges vegetarians with turning their backs on their “evolutionary
heritage” on the grounds that “eating meat helped make us what
we are,” totally disregarding the fact that up until very recently,
meat was generally used as a condiment and considered a luxury.
By eschewing meat, he says unabashedly, we’re “sacrificing a part
of our identity.” Since when is Darwinian evolution a moral system
by which to justify our actions? In no other aspect of our lives do
we use evolution to justify our behavior, so why should this be the
exception? We have the ability and responsibility to make moral and
rational decisions, not abdicate our ethics to a mindless and amoral
process. Arguments such as these deny every aspect of what makes
us rational, compassionate and moral creatures. We’re not forced to
obey the dictates of evolution, just as we don’t obey them when we
write novels, build flying machines and splice genes. Darwin’s theory
is not a substitute for morality, except when we want to justify eating
animals.
There is perhaps no other lifestyle habit we spend so much time
defending. Every excuse we make is an attempt to absolve ourselves
from our participation in the gratuitous exploitation, mutilation
and death of nonhuman animals. If we have to disguise, rationalize,
romanticize and ritualize eating animals to such a degree that we’re
no longer living in truth or reality, then perhaps we’re not comfortable
with it at all. Adopting a vegan diet is the best choice I’ve ever made,
and I’ve never had to offer any excuses for it.

- 37 -

Colleen Patrick-Goudreau is the founder of Compassionate Cooks (www.
compassionatecooks.com). Through cooking classes, podcasts, articles,
and her first-of-its-kind cooking DVD, she shares the joys and benefits of
a plant-based diet. She can be reached at colleen@compassionatecooks.
com

http://www.satyamag.com/oct06/goudreau.html

- 38 -

Animal Rights “Welfarists”: An Oxymoron
- Joan Dunayer

“Gas the chickens!” An imaginary rally cry, too morally repugnant
to be real. Yet, some animal advocacy groups, such as PETA and
United Poultry Concerns, have been asking that slaughterhouses gas
chickens to death in their transport crates rather than leave them
conscious while they’re shackled, electrically paralyzed, and slit at
the throat. The mass murder of chickens is unnecessary, unjust, and
invariably cruel. Urging that chickens be gassed suggests otherwise. It
suggests that the problem is how they’re killed. A campaign for less-
cruel slaughter proposes a new way of committing mass murder. Such
a campaign is “welfarist.”
“ Welfarist” campaigns foster the notion that enslaved and
slaughtered animals can have well-being (welfare). Genuine welfare is
incompatible with enslavement, slaughter, and other abuse, so I put
quotation marks around welfare when the context is speciesist harm.
“Welfarist” campaigns are anti-rights. They advocate different ways
of violating nonhumans’ moral rights. So-called humane slaughter
campaigns advocate a different way of violating nonhumans’ right to
life. Campaigns for less-severe confinement advocate a different way
of violating nonhumans’ right to liberty.
PETA pressured McDonald’s, Burger King, and Wendy’s to require
that their egg and flesh suppliers confine nonhumans less cruelly.
These restaurants now have specified, among other things, that

- 39 -

their egg suppliers must increase the space allotted to a caged hen
from 48 square inches to at least 67. A hen has a moral right not to
be confined to either 48 or 67 square inches. Many activists have
chanted, “What do we want? Animal rights! When do we want it?
Now!” With good reason, no activist ever has chanted, “What do we
want? Slightly bigger cages! When do we want them? Whenever
McDonald’s or some other massive abuser requires their suppliers
to use them!” Any attempt to work with, rather than against, animal-
abuse industries should raise a huge red flag. It’s morally wrong to
exploit a nonhuman in any amount of space, inside or outside a cage.
That’s the message animal advocates should convey.
We don’t need to eat body parts from chickens killed by gassing
or any other method. We don’t need to eat eggs from hens held
captive in cages or any other way. We don’t need to eat food from
any nonhuman animals. Instead of calling for less-cruel slaughter
or confinement, we should promote veganism. Simply publicizing
the realities of nonhuman exploitation can prompt many people to
become vegan. Persuading people to adopt a vegan lifestyle reduces
the number of nonhumans who suffer and die. It also decreases
public support for the flesh industry, vivisection, and other forms of
nonhuman exploitation, hastening the day when they can be banned.
Some activists espouse both “welfarism” and veganism. Their
“welfarism” impedes the spread of veganism by implying that
nonhuman exploitation is unavoidable and therefore acceptable
when “humane.” Our message to the public must be clear and
consistent: We don’t need to exploit other animals; exploiting them is
unjust and always causes suffering. Just as role models for veganism
must adhere to veganism in their lifestyle, spokespeople for veganism
must adhere to veganism in their advocacy. It wouldn’t make sense to
advocate veganism while wearing cow skin and eating pig flesh. Nor
does it make sense to advocate veganism one minute and supposedly
more-palatable flesh or egg production the next. To have full power,
our opposition to nonhuman exploitation must be unequivocal.

- 40 -

We should persistently advocate nonhuman rights—that is,
emancipation. “Welfarists” who call themselves “animal rights” activists
undermine the concept of nonhuman rights. They confuse the public
into thinking that imprisonment, slaughter, and other speciesist
abuse can be consistent with nonhuman rights. “Welfarists” replace
nonhumans’ right to life with a “right” to be murdered in less terror
and pain. They shrink nonhumans’ right to liberty down to a “right” to
be unjustly imprisoned in more space. In reality someone who lacks
the most basic rights—to life and liberty—has no rights at all.
While advocating total emancipation, we can accomplish partial
emancipations, through abolitionist (emancipationist) bans. All
abolitionist bans protect at least some animals from some form
of exploitation. They prevent animals from entering the exploitive
situation and may also remove current victims from that situation. For
example, a ban on elephants in “animal acts” emancipates elephants
from circuses and other performance situations. A ban on bear
hunting prevents bears from being wounded or killed: prevents,
rather than modifies, their abuse. Activists can work for any number
of abolitionist bans, including bans on pelt products, fatty bird-liver,
the cloning of pets, and marine mammals in aquaprisons. For now,
abolitionist bans won’t emancipate most nonhumans, but they’ll
emancipate some and move us in the right direction. We can’t ban
the most popular speciesist products (such as fish flesh, cow milk, and
chicken eggs) until we build public opposition to those products.
When we can’t achieve abolitionist bans, we can engage in
abolitionist boycotts. Although they lack the force of law, boycotts
can be highly effective. A “Boycott Eggs” campaign would advance
chicken emancipation. By convincing more people to stop buying
eggs, it would decrease the number of suffering chickens while
increasing opposition to the entire egg industry. Similarly, a
boycott of body-care products that aren’t cruelty-free would reduce
vivisection and boost demand for cruelty-free products. In addition
to boycotting particular products, activists can boycott particular

- 41 -

speciesist institutions such as horse racing and zoos.
“Welfarists” commonly say, “I support anything that reduces animal
suffering.” Over the long term, “welfarist” measures increase suffering
because they perpetuate exploitation. Consider the Humane Methods
of Slaughter Act (HMSA). If you’re at all informed about what occurs
at slaughterhouses, you know that the HMSA utterly fails to protect
nonhuman animals. Primarily it bolsters public support for slaughter
by legitimizing the flesh industry and giving the false impression that
the victims are killed “humanely.” “Welfarist” measures are largely futile
because they leave animals in the hands of their oppressors. Only
emancipationist measures, which honor animals’ moral rights, can
adequately protect nonhumans. Genuine nonhuman welfare requires
freedom from exploitation.

Joan Dunayer is the author of Animal Equality: Language and Liberation
(2001) and the newly released Speciesism, both from Ryce Publishing.

http://www.satyamag.com/mar05/dunayer.html

- 42 -

Truthiness is Stranger Than Fiction:
The Hidden Cost of Selling the Public
on “Cage-Free” Eggs
- James La Veck

Truthiness: something that is spoken as if true, that one wants others to
believe is true, that said often enough with enough voices orchestrated in
behind it, might even sound true, but is not true.—Ken Dryden, Canadian
MP
Many leaders in today’s animal movement are supporting and even
helping develop animal product labeling schemes and “animal
compassionate” husbandry standards. Some are even promoting
animal products such as eggs bearing a “cage-free” label. This rapidly
accelerating trend is being celebrated by some as a “new level of
engagement” with industry, and criticized by others as nothing less
than the industry’s wholesale co-option of the animals’ cause.
Participating advocates have brushed off suggestions that they have
a conflict of interest. “The claim that we are in bed with the industry,”
said one senior staffer at a large animal welfare organization, “ignores
the fact that every major industry group identifies us as a huge threat.”

But is there more to the story?
This same staffer was reported to be a participant in an April 28,
2005 meeting between his advocacy organization and producers
of industrialized “cage-free” eggs. As noted on the blog of industry
attendee Joel Salatin, this “inaugural and historic” meeting focused on

- 43 -

“brainstorming” the launch of a national anti-battery cage campaign
that would promote “cage-free” eggs as the alternative. Salatin
observed how “breaking in to the Wal-Marts of the world consumed
the discussion time,” and how “all the other producers were salivating
over more market—one admitted he was sitting on 700 cases (that’s
21,000 dozen) per week right now that he doesn’t have a market for.”
Salatin added that the largest producer at the meeting, whom he
referred to as “the kingpin,” assured the animal advocates that all the
right industry “players” were there. The kingpin’s point, according to
Salatin, was that “the campaign would promote only those of us at the
table. She expected a business bonanza.”
So whether they are “in bed” or not, at least one major animal
organization and several large-scale animal exploiters appear to be
engaged in a significant collaborative relationship, to such a degree
that egg producers were said to be “salivating” and “expecting a
business bonanza.”

Reform, or Reinforcement?
In 2001, Bill Moyer, an activist with 40 years experience in the civil
rights, anti-war and anti-nuclear movements, published Doing
Democracy. This landmark book, which shows how the ups and
downs of social movements generally follow a predictable pattern,
gives activists a model for dramatically increasing their effectiveness.
Moyer points out that successful movements require activists to fulfill
four distinct roles. One of these is the role of “reformers,” individuals
and large organizations focused on getting the movement’s goals,
values and alternatives adopted into laws, institutional policies and
industry practice. Reformers are said to be especially instrumental in
the later stages of the process of social change.
But Moyer points out there can be a dark side to reform-focused
organizations that shows up, tragically, just when a movement is

- 44 -

hitting its stride. The movement’s opposition—in this case, the animal
exploiting industries—sensing increased public sympathy for the
cause, tries “to split or undercut the movement by offering minor
reforms,” and “the ineffective reformers start making agreements in
the name of ‘realistic politics,’ usually over the objections of grassroots
groups.”
Why? Moyer suggests that collaborating with the opposition can
offer substantial financial and public relations benefits to individual
organizations, even while the movement as a whole may suffer
grievous harm.
The staff of large organizations can sometimes forget their role as
stewards of a movement’s grassroots power, notes Moyer, and instead
of fostering democracy in their organizations and in the movement as
a whole, start acting as self-appointed leaders. They “behave as if they
represent the movement, deciding on strategies and programs for
the entire movement and then sending directives down to the local
levels.” Moyer makes clear how this “oppressive, hierarchical behavior,
combined with conservative politics,” divides the movement, splitting
large organizations off from grassroots activists. This is a serious
problem, he emphasizes, because “the power of social movements is
based in the grassroots.”
In Moyer’s reformers-gone-wrong scenario, the professionals running
large organizations may even come to identify more with their
counterparts in the opposition than with the grassroots folk whose
donations pay their salaries, and whose hard work makes their
programs come alive. As a result, a movement can lose its way, “either
through collusion or compromises by reformer activists that undercut
the achievement of critical movement goals.”
Which returns us to the proliferation of advocacy-approved animal
product labeling schemes, and the identity theft now plaguing the
vegan and animal rights movements. In a recent New York Times
article titled “Meat Labels Hope to Lure the Sensitive Carnivore,” John

- 45 -

Mackey, founder and CEO of Whole Foods, one of the largest meat
retailers in America, is described as “a vegan who is increasingly
outspoken on animal rights issues.” In the same article, the American
Humane Association and Humane Farm Animal Care, both with a
clear focus on animal husbandry reforms and not on the boycott of
animal products or the abolition of animal exploitation, are referred to
as “animal rights organizations.”
But what’s the harm, proponents say, they’re only words, aren’t they?
In the same New York Times article, one grocery chain boasted a 25
percent jump in meat sales since adding the “certified humane” logo,
even though these products cost, on average, 30 to 40 percent more.
It seems the industry has more than a few reasons to be salivating
over its new collaboration with the animal advocacy movement.

A Moment of Truthiness
But how could intelligent and experienced activist leaders get drawn
into a rather predictable industry trap? Perhaps they have failed
to grasp that the values that drive a social justice movement are
inherently incompatible with those of a business based on exploiting
the very beings the movement has pledged to protect.
When the moral framework of a social justice cause is deliberately
co-mingled with the utilitarian, profit-maximizing logic of an
exploitative industry, what was once a natural adversarial relationship
gets twisted into a dysfunctional marriage of convenience. To make
such an unnatural alliance work, critical thinking, the very catalyst of
conscience, must be neutralized through the manipulations of public
relations.
As a strategy to end the use of battery cages, for example, several
animal organizations are encouraging members and supporters to
persuade individuals and institutions to switch to eggs labeled “cage-
free.” One of the architects of this campaign has stated that the term

- 46 -

“cage-free” is not misleading at all—for even though the hens are
confined in artificial indoor environments, technically speaking, they
are not in actual cages.
But being technically factual and telling the truth are not necessarily
the same. Just ask members of the general public to imagine the lives
of chickens who produce “cage-free” eggs. Most will likely envision
something akin to the mythical “Old MacDonald’s Farm,” contented
animals freely wandering about a bucolic barnyard.
The reality? Millions of young hens standing shoulder to shoulder
in huge enclosed warehouses, forced to dwell day and night in their
own waste, enduring air so foul that workers sometimes wear gas
masks to prevent permanent damage to their lungs. Just like their
battery-caged sisters, “cage-free” hens are brutally debeaked, force
molted (starved for days to restart an egg laying cycle) and, of course,
slaughtered when they are no longer of use. Or, as one investigator
discovered, if no buyer can be found for their ravaged bodies, they
might just be packed into steel drums and gassed, the piles of
their lifeless remains sent to a landfill or used as compost. Not to
mention the millions of male chicks who, incapable of laying eggs,
are unceremoniously suffocated in plastic bags or ground alive into
fertilizer or feed, their lives snuffed out before they even begin.

“New and Improved” Abuse?
If we pursue justice by collaborating with industry, by helping
develop and promote what we tell ourselves are slightly less hideous
forms of exploitation, are we not attempting to displace one form of
abuse with another?
While it is questionable whether such a strategy could eventually
lead to the end of exploitation, one thing is certain: when animal
advocates encourage the public to accept “new and improved” forms
of abuse, we are powerfully reinforcing the status of nonhuman

- 47 -

animals as property—to be acquired, used and disposed of at will.
We are also significantly bolstering the credibility and positive public
image of an industry with a long history of betraying public trust.
Even more troubling, we animal advocates cannot successfully carry
out such a strategy without directly taking part in misleading the
general public. Consider, for example, what it takes to successfully
“sell” the idea that buying and consuming eggs labeled “cage-free”
is socially responsible, and even compassionate. If the full reality of
“cage-free” egg production—or any other systematized exploitation
of animals—were to be revealed, wouldn’t it be impossible to
convince large numbers of people to support it?
Hence, to promote “cage-free” eggs, we must step across the invisible
but critical line that separates an advocate from an apologist.

From Cage-free to Cruelty-free: How Truthiness Becomes Fiction
Let’s examine some of the statements that have appeared in local
media where “cage-free” egg campaigns have run. Watch as the
pressure to close the sale leads to the inevitable blurring of fact and
fiction:
One student animal rights group characterizes their “cage-free”
campaign as trying to get their college’s food service to no longer
purchase its eggs from “large factory farms with cruel conditions.” The
group’s leader states that “factory farms and caged hens are harmful
to the environment,” and that “cage-free eggs are good for the animals
and local farmers.”
At another college, animal advocates state that if the university would
switch to eggs labeled “cage-free,” “we could pride ourselves on
knowing that these birds were living a decent life,” and that they’d no
longer be supporting “environmentally unsustainable practices that
exploit the land, the workers, the animals.”

- 48 -

The truth is, most “cage-free” eggs are produced on industrialized
farms, and there is little evidence to suggest “cage-free” production
techniques are less harmful to the environment. They are certainly not
“good for” animals.
Said one doctoral candidate, “If entire nations across Europe can
ban battery cages and go cruelty-free, then I’m optimistic that [our
university] certainly can as well!”
But can an industry that mutilates and kills the young animals it
exploits truthfully be called “cruelty-free”?
At another college, a student sponsor of a successful “cage-free”
campaign says, “It’s good that this university can show that we’re
compassionate toward animal rights.” So switching to eggs labeled
“cage-free” is now an expression of animal rights, a philosophy that
rejects all exploitation and boycotts the consumption of animal
products?
“We’re happy to do it,’’ said the food manager for a Fortune 500
company. “There’s a ripple effect that I think will happen. Other
companies also will want to ensure humane treatment of animals.’’
As one astute activist pointed out, terms that can be used in a relative
sense when communicating with animal activists, are now being
applied in an absolute sense when selling consumers on these “new
and improved” animal products. So while one might choose to argue
that some forms of exploitation and killing are less inhumane or less
cruel than others, an informed advocate cannot honestly characterize
any form of exploitation and killing as humane or free of cruelty. Yet
this is exactly what the public is being led to believe.
Imagine what it means to do all the work needed to pull down the
veil covering the horrific injustice of battery egg production, and
then, to turn around and methodically cover it up again with a new
and improved façade: “Cage-free” eggs—the cruelty-free, socially
responsible, environmentally sustainable alternative. Good for the

- 49 -

animals, good for farmers, good for workers, good for you.
This, at a time when more and more people around the world are
being addicted to an animal protein-centered diet, the proven cause
of most chronic illness. This, at a time when we face record obesity,
and avian influenza looms as the next pandemic. This, at a time when
UN researchers have determined that animal agriculture produces a
greater global warming impact than all the world’s cars, trucks, buses,
planes, trains and ships combined.

Let’s Not Forget, They’re Tastier Too
A repeating theme of news stories around the “cage-free” egg
campaign—actually common to much of the coverage of advocate-
approved labeling schemes—is how delicious these “new and
improved” animal products are.
One campus dining service conducted a taste test, failing to find even
one student who didn’t think “cage-free” eggs tasted better. Another
dining manager was quoted complimenting their freshness. She
spoke of how one of their chefs “made banana bread with the eggs
and said the bread rose to be lighter and fluffier,” and how “students
seem interested in tasting the eggs,” concluding that “people seem to
be eating more eggs just to try them out.”
Is there any doubt our cause is being co-opted?
But how can anyone blame well-meaning activists for contributing
to the growing smorgasbord of mis- and dis-information? After
all, they’ve been convinced by people they admire that if they tell
the truth, they will not reduce suffering as much as by offering up
the false reassurances of truthiness. They’ve been convinced that
replacing one form of abuse with another is a viable path to ending
exploitation.
As the core values and principles of the movement are perversely put

- 50 -

in service of selling the very products of suffering and exploitation
they were intended to abolish, people of integrity and goodwill
become increasingly disoriented. They lose their ability to recognize
they’ve been drawn into a destructive conflict of interest, mistaking it
for “pragmatism” and “common sense.”

A Half Truth is a Whole Lie
Is it time to take a look in the mirror? Do we really want to convince
our most idealistic young people that skillful manipulation is a surefire
path to a better world? That PR spin, and not teaching, is the answer?
Do we want to perpetuate the destructive fantasy that a social justice
movement can be run like a multi-national corporation?
Ignorance, denial and dishonesty are at the very root, not just of
exploitation itself, but of the social and psychological forces that allow
its toleration. When we are willing to sacrifice the truth, to dilute its
power in order to accrue short-term gains, however noble they may
seem to be, we break free of our ethical moorings and begin to drift
off course, inevitably carried away by the same currents that drive
those caught up in exploitation.
In our heart of hearts, we know there is a better path. If we take the
time to listen, our conscience will show us the way.

James LaVeck is cofounder of the nonprofit arts and educational
organization Tribe of Heart and producer of award-winning
documentaries The Witness and Peaceable Kingdom. To learn more, visit
www.tribeofheart.org

http://www.satyamag.com/feb07/laveck.html

- 51 -

Glossary

Sentience
To be sentient is to be conscious or self-aware, capable of perception or
feeling. Sentient humans and nonhumans feel sensations of pain, pleasure and
so on. When a being is sentient, s/he will naturally have interests. For instance,
the capacity for sentient beings to feel pain provides them with a clear interest
in not feeling pain.
Equal Consideration
The principle of equal consideration requires that we treat similar interests
in a similar way unless there is a morally sound reason for not doing so. If we
apply the principle of equal consideration to animals, then we must extend to
animals the one basic right that we extend to all human beings: the right not
to be treated as a thing.
Rights
A right is a particular way of protecting interests. To say that an interest is
protected by a right is to say that the interest is protected against being
ignored or violated simply because it will benefit someone else to do so.
Animal Rights
The animal rights position holds that that we ought to abolish the
institutionalised exploitation of nonhumans. It maintains that animals have the
right not to be treated as the resources or property of humans.
Animal Welfare
The traditional animal welfare position holds that it is acceptable for us to use
animals for at least some purposes, but that we must regulate animal use so
that we treat animals ‘humanely’ and do not impose ‘unnecessary’suffering on
them. Exemplified by the stance of the RSPCA.
New Welfarist
A term applied to those who campaign for welfare regulation as a strategy to
lead to the abolition of animal exploitation. For example PETA and most large
“animal rights” organisations. The ‘new welfarist’ contrasts with the ‘traditional
welfarist’ above who does not seek abolition as an end goal.

- 52 -

Further Information

Websites Books
Animal Rights Advocates Inc: Introduction to Animal Rights: Your
www.ara.org.au Child or the Dog
- Gary L. Francione
Gary L. Francione’s Blog:
www.abolitionistapproach.com Animals as Persons: Essays on the
Abolition of Animal Exploitation
Unpopular Vegan Essays:
- Gary L. Francione
http://unpopularveganessays.
blogspot.com/ Rain Without Thunder: The Idealogy of
the Animal Rights Movement
An Animal Friendly Life:
- Gary L. Francione
http://ananimalfriendlylife.com/
Animals, Property and the Law
- Gary L. Francione
Making a Killing: The Political
Economy of Animal Rights
- Bob Torres
Animal Rights/Human Rights:
Entanglements of Oppression and
Liberation
- David Nibert

- 53 -

Animal Rights vs Welfare Reforms Reader

Animal Rights vs Welfare Reforms Reader

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (19)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (20)

Mehr von animalrightsadvocates

Mehr von animalrightsadvocates (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Animal Rights vs Welfare Reforms Reader