Farm Sanctuary Doublespeak
Farm Sanctuary
recently posted a video entitled Welfare reform and vegan advocacy: the facts. This video is full of misleading and
inaccurate information and does a great disservice to animal advocates and the
animal rights movement. Frankly, Farm Sanctuary and its president, Gene Baur,
should be embarrassed by this most recent piece of shameless propaganda.
In response to
this video, James LaVeck and Jenny Stein of Humane Myth wrote a powerful piece which
addresses the core problem with messages such as the one presented in this video.
As they state on the Humane Myth facebook page, “The only thing standing in the way of
the animal rights movement becoming a great social justice revolution is a
poverty of imagination and a shortfall of personal conviction. It is up to all
of us to transcend the cynicism of these times, and to reach for something
higher.” I strongly urge all animal advocates to read this important
article.
In my response to this video
(which follows), I basically itemize all of the misleading information,
hypocrisy, unsubstantiated conclusions, and illogical arguments contained
therein. Points from the video are in bold and my responses are without bold. If
you would like to see the referenced back-up documentation that could not be
provided online, please ask for such in a comment.
It’s easy for discussions to get stuck in sound
bites and posturing about who cares more about animals. Animal liberation is
not about our own personal purity.
All the people I know who are speaking out against treatment
issues are not ego-centric and are not trying to win or seem more pure than
anyone else. They just want the movement to have integrity, to be truthful, and
to be effective. Attempting to marginalize anyone who questions the strategies
and, ultimately, the authority of the large organizations is one of the methods
used by these groups to shut down discussion and critical thinking.
We can’t just cling to the idea that if we
always ask for exactly what we want and nothing less, that that will bring
about the best possible world for animals.
Animal rights advocates need to consistently state clearly what is
moral and just and not stray from the core message that animals are not ours to
use. It is inappropriate, disingenuous, and counter-productive to tell the
public that animals are not ours to use and then tell them
that eating “higher quality” animal products is a real solution and just as
valid as refraining from eating animal products. The same applies to praising
animal-using businesses for making untrue statements about how they only sell
“humane” animal products.
Data Point 1: Welfare reforms reduce suffering
and provide
immediate good for animals
"Suffering" is a highly subjective term, and it's all
too easy to make scientific sounding claims about how this non-scientific,
non-quantifiable internal experience is "reduced" by welfare
“reforms” supposedly caused by legislation or industry promises. The images that
are shown in this video when discussing this “fact” − with the hens in clean,
relatively spacious cages and barns− are not even representative of the norm.
The first image depicting “enriched colony housing” is not based
on reality but is actually from
industry marketing materials and doesn’t contain
real hens. Very interestingly, this specific system is being used in
California by J.S. West & Co. which is challenging the confinement
provisions of Proposition 2. Despite claims
made by Farm Sanctuary, the law
that resulted from Prop 2 does not ban cages; it simply mandates that the
included animals be able to exhibit certain behaviors. Therefore, West claims that it can use
battery cages in California without violating the law. Of course, this sort of
vagueness and the resulting endless disagreements about interpretations and
enforcement of such laws is another reason why campaigns to pass husbandry
reform legislation wastes resources that could be better used in other ways.
The second image of hens in a spacious barn is also not the norm.
As you will note, when this photo is shown, the narrator states “…hens on
cage-free farms or in enriched cages suffer a lot less than hens in battery
cages.” However,
when Paul Shapiro was a grassroots activist doing open rescue work, before he
became HSUS Vice President, he was quoted as saying; "But "cage free" doesn't necessarily
mean much in terms of quality of life for hens. Eggs labeled "cage
free" often come from hens packed side by side in massive sheds. Their
access to the outdoors may be only through a tiny opening.”
The tragic reality
of what life is like for farmed animals on farms all over the US is very
different from what is portrayed in the media, in industry marketing materials,
and in this Farm Sanctuary video.
The so-called “humane” provisions in “welfare” laws are phased in
over many years and the language is very vague (see more info about these
welfare laws in my first blog).
Furthermore, “welfare” laws all contain many exceptions that can be used if an
inspector ever does show up and question the facility. And we all should know
that the USDA and state agriculture departments are understaffed, underfunded,
and friendly with the animal agriculture industry. In my first blog
piece, I gave many different examples of HSUS criticizing the USDA for not
doing its job. And very recently, the USDA has come under
fire once again – this time at a slaughterhouse used by In-N-Out
Burger – for being grossly negligent.
What makes us think that the USDA is going to enforce these vague
laws full of loopholes? Even if a facility is actually fined for violating the
law, it will just see the low cost of paying the fine as the cost of doing
business.
Do
we really think that enriched cages (called for in H.R.3798, the federal
egg bill, which is supported
by
Farm Sanctuary and other large organizations) are any
better for the birds? According to a HSUS report, hens who live in enriched cages live an extremely
unhealthy and miserable existence (this report was published before HSUS
partnered with the United Egg Producers to support this fatally flawed piece of
legislation).
It is true that if the industry actually gets rid of a few of
their worst practices based on customer demand or economic motives, this might
provide some animals a minuscule reduction in their pain and agony in some
instances. But animal rights groups should not be praising them for doing so.
And they shouldn’t spend their resources fighting for “welfare” reforms that
give legitimacy to the thought that it’s okay to exploit and kill animals for
our own use. When we work on treatment campaigns, it’s easy for the industry to
answer the problems, to co-opt our message, and even to appropriate our
language.
However, when we talk about the use and killing of animals being
morally wrong, the industry cannot derail, discredit, or co-opt our message.
That is why they are so highly motivated to partner with animal advocacy
organizations willing to push this undeniable truth under the rug.
Two final notes regarding Farm Sanctuary's mixed message about
“humane” animal products. In 2009, this
organization launched a campaign and developed a report
to let the public know the truth
behind “humane” animal products. In a
related press release,
Farm Sanctuary co-founder and president
Gene Baur said, “Most people will be surprised to learn that even the most
stringent standards often fail to meet their expectations about how animals
should be treated. For example, in many of these labeling schemes, 'free range'
birds still spend their entire lives tightly packed together in sheds, physical
mutilations like debeaking and tail docking are still allowed, and there are no
requirements for outdoor access for some species. We developed this report to
provide the facts and increase the transparency of the labeling process so the
public knows what they are purchasing.”
A Farm Sanctuary pamphlet entitled “The Truth Behind “Humane” Meat, Milk, and Eggs” includes the following statement, “According to Webster’s Dictionary, “humane” means “characterized by kindness, mercy or compassion.” Commodifying and slaughtering sentient animals is incompatible with this definition.”
But isn’t this recent Farm Sanctuary video completely incompatible with its “Truth Behind Labels” campaign?
A Farm Sanctuary pamphlet entitled “The Truth Behind “Humane” Meat, Milk, and Eggs” includes the following statement, “According to Webster’s Dictionary, “humane” means “characterized by kindness, mercy or compassion.” Commodifying and slaughtering sentient animals is incompatible with this definition.”
But isn’t this recent Farm Sanctuary video completely incompatible with its “Truth Behind Labels” campaign?
Additionally, a senior Farm
Sanctuary staffer, Bruce Friedrich, wrote in 2010 (before he joined the Farm Sanctuary staff)
that eating animals is “indefensible” and “eating meat supports cruelty so severe
that it would warrant felony cruelty charges were dogs or cats so horribly
abused -- and that's true even of so-called ‘humane’ farms.”
Friedrich also wrote an
entire article indicating his viewpoint about the invalidity of “humane” animal
products for the February 2006 edition of Satya Magazine. However, he later asked that this
article be removed from the Satya web site. Below are quotes from his article.
“Eating
“humane meat” causes more animals to suffer on factory farms and die in
industrial slaughterhouses – animals who otherwise might be saved by adopting
and advocating vegetarianism’s message of compassion.”
“Not
only are many of the humane labels – like “Swine Welfare” and “Animal Care” –
entirely meaningless, describing animals treated in the same way as unlabeled
products (see PETA’s discussion at GoVeg.com), but please ask yourself a basic
question: Would you be willing to cut an animal’s throat?”
“Calling
any of these products “humane” – a word that references our very best nature –
distorts the meaning of the word.”
Friedrich
was also a board member of Farm Forward in June of this year when that
organization agreed to administer a $151,000
ASPCA grant to turkey farmer Frank Reese (a fellow Farm Forward board
member) to assist his “humane” turkey operation.
Data Point 2: The animal ag industry spends millions to oppose
welfare reforms, because reforms are bad for the industry
The
industry obviously has a multipronged approach to advancing its agenda.
Spending money to fight its so-called opposition is one way, and collaborating
with wealthy animal advocacy groups is another way. This is how powerful
interests achieve their goals. It's well known that major lobbyists donate to
both Republican and Democratic candidates.
Illustrating
how the animal ag industry collaborates with animal advocacy groups, the United
Egg Producers (UEP), which represents 95% of all the nation’s egg farms, is
strongly endorsing the aforementioned federal egg bill in
cooperation with HSUS. According
to
UEP President Gene Gregory, this bill means the survival of the egg industry.
Additionally, hundreds of individual animal ag associations and egg farmers have
also endorsed this
federal egg bill.
James
LaVeck wrote a very informative article about how clever
the animal industry leaders are and how the large animal organizations are
playing right into their hands. It should be required reading for anyone who is
bothered by the current state of the movement.
Data Point 3: Welfare reforms are followed by a reduction in
consumption of the affected animal products
The information in the video about what is going on in Europe is
mostly speculative so that really means nothing. What is true, though, is that
global meat consumption is skyrocketing.
Regarding the USA, there is plenty of evidence that consumers want
“higher-quality” animal products and are willing to pay the price. In this article,
agricultural economists conclude that, in the US, higher egg prices most likely
won’t affect consumption. A University of California Davis study
showed how the sale of “humane” meat is dramatically increasing. This article
shows that when a major NY grocer started selling “humane” veal, his sales went
up 35%. Certified Humane (sponsored by HSUS) reports
that selling “humane” animal products will increase sales.
Data Point 4: Media coverage of animal welfare issues causes
people to eat less meat
The one study
used in this video to misleadingly “prove” this point claimed to show that when
media attention was paid to animal welfare issues, meat consumption decreased.
This study only shows a small correlational
relationship between the two variables - it does not come close to showing a causal
relationship which is viewed as the gold standard of
research.
Data Point
5: Welfare reforms go hand in hand with decreased meat consumption
My response to this one is basically the same as my response to
Data Point/Fact 4. The charts and graphs in the video may show a loose
correlational relationship between “welfare reform” and reduced meat
consumption but they definitely do not show a causal one which, as previously
mentioned, is the standard for valid research. Correlational relationships
prove nothing.
This unscientific and unconvincing conclusion doesn’t take into
account that if animal product consumption is, in fact, decreasing in certain
areas or in certain segments of the population or for certain brief periods, it
very easily could be caused by many different factors, including an increased
awareness of how animal products affect our health and the environment or an
increase in pricing due to the state of the economy, weather conditions, or
food shortages.
To be more specific, it is stated in the video that meat
consumption has decreased dramatically over the past ten years, especially
since 2005. To be clear, I am not convinced that the chart used in the video
contains valid data. However, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the
data is accurate. Then, according to this chart, meat consumption does not
really start to decrease until closer to 2008 – when the US economic
recession started and when the largest beef
recall in history occurred due to food safety concerns. Failing
to consider major factors such as these raises even more questions about the
credibility of the argument being made.
European countries with stronger protections for farmed animals
also have more vegetarians.
This is one more instance of the video featuring a possible
correlational relationship (which proves nothing) but not providing any
evidence of a cause and effect relationship.
The organizations sponsoring and endorsing welfare reforms are
carrying out the overwhelming majority of efforts to encourage vegan eating.
Yes, some of the organizations listed in the video do both welfare
campaigns and promote veganism (to varying degrees). However, what goes
unaddressed is the negative impact their very generously funded
"humane" animal product initiatives have on vegan advocacy. Large
numbers of community educators report that since major animal advocacy
organizations started endorsing and promoting "humane" animal
products in the mid-2000's, they have seen more and more people who reject the
vegan message and instead express their concern for animals by buying the
"right kind" of animal products, most often from Whole Foods. The CEO
of Whole Foods, John Mackey, sits on the board of HSUS.
In this article,
this video,
this piece,
and this article,
HSUS President Wayne Pacelle states the following:
“We don’t say you must be vegan”
“I don’t think everyone needs to adopt a vegetarian diet to make a
difference”
“[I’m] not out to liberate all beasts at all costs”
“We think (animal) farming is a noble profession”
“I’m a vegan but people are going to eat meat and if they’re going
to eat meat they shouldn’t allow/tolerate the animals to be treated this way.”
(Not once did he encourage Ellen’s viewers to go vegan or explain to them that
being vegan is the only way to have a compassionate diet.)
HSUS Vice President for Farm Animal Protection, Paul Shapiro, stated
in one interview and confirmed
it in another interview:
HSUS “does not have an ‘anti-meat’ agenda, is not plotting the
demise of animal agriculture”
The following terms are not included in the index of Pacelle’s
book, The Bond:
Our Kinship with Animals, Our Call to Defend Them:
vegan, vegetarian, diet, or plant-based diet.
HSUS recently put an animal killer on its payroll when it
hired
Joe Maxwell, a pig farmer,
as its director of rural affairs. Mr.
Maxwell’s job is to provide more marketing opportunities for
so-called “humane” animal killers. Maxwell (along with his partners) sends
1,000 pigs every week to be killed.
The most recent HSUS
magazine glorifies “humane” farms on eight pages and not once is veganism
mentioned in the article.
In
the President’s Note (not available online) of this same magazine, Pacelle
touts his organization’s husbandry reform “victories” and states, “While
virtually all animals used for food will go through the unenviable process of
slaughter, the run-up to that moment – in short, the bulk of their lives – need
not be filled with privation, misery, and fear.” This horrifically hypocritical
statement is reminiscent of another of Pacelle’s jewels, “And yes, they are going to have at least one day when
they go to slaughter but the rest of their life does not need to be one of
misery and deprivation.”
Hence,
claiming that HSUS promotes veganism is not credible when those types of
comments and its extensive collaboration with the industry is taken into
consideration.
Data Point 6: People who make a
small change become more likely to make a large change
Obviously, “the foot in
the door phenomenon” may have some merit in certain situations.
However, it is not a valid argument for using treatment campaigns. Eating animals is so ingrained in our culture
that even individuals who care about animals are going to use every
rationalization and justification they can to continue to do so with a clear
conscience. And the treatment campaigns give them plenty of help in that
regard. (See my blog
piece for many articles about how former vegetarians/vegans are eating animals
again in response to the trend of “humane” animal products which are happily
promoted by animal organizations.)
Additionally, our movement should be about social justice and
about what is morally right. It should not be about appeasing animal-eating
members of the large organizations and it should not be about claiming
“victories” that can be used for fund-raising purposes. Sadly, though, these
seem to be the real reasons why the large organizations are all now working on
treatment campaigns and not the disingenuous reasons shown in this video and in
other such propaganda.
For information about how to respond to this type of
organizational double-speak, please read these compelling and important
articles from Humane Myth about how the large
corporate groups are using tried and true PR tactics in order to shut down
discussion of these issues.