Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Sue Cross

GET UPDATES FROM Sue Cross
 

One Law for Pets, Another Law for Farmed Animals - A Case for the Vegan Option Continued

Posted: 07/08/2012 00:00

Most pets in most countries are protected by laws that oblige their owners to protect them from pain, suffering and injury. And these owners must give them a suitable environment so they can 'exhibit' their natural behaviour.

But most pet owners do not need a law to advise them how to look after the animals in their care. They know their pets need freedom to play and explore; a diet that suits their digestive systems; and a comfortable place to rest and feel safe. They know they have feelings - that they experience joy, happiness, excitement; even concern, anxiety, misery. These animals are part of the family; loved and cherished - not just dogs and cats but any animal that has been brought into the domestic environment. People who keep hens, pigs, sheep, goats or rabbits describe their personalities, their individual traits, their likes and dislikes. They know what their animals enjoy and they do not want to let them down. They empathise with them when they are hurt, sick or frightened. Veterinary bills are willingly paid. This is a relationship built on trust.

But the situation is very different when it comes to animals raised for food. Aficionados of meat passionately defend their choice and seem not to mind that they perpetuate cruelty - with the law on their side. For no country has animal welfare laws that protect farmed animals the way pets are protected. They do little more than make it an offence to cause "unnecessary suffering".

When animals are crammed together in their thousands, in their fear and frustration they turn on each other. Although it might be unlawful to mutilate - to beak trim, teeth grind or tail dock - exceptions are permitted on welfare grounds or, in other words, if not doing so would cause greater suffering. So to reduce the likelihood of injury from 'cannibalism' these kinds of 'mutilations' (both are industry terms) become crucial. No country has a law that makes anaesthetic a legal requirement for these procedures as long as the animals are very young. (It would, in any case, be an impossibility when numbers are so great). But find a puppy in distress from having had its tail docked and an animal welfare society will rush to administer analgesics and do everything possible to bring the perpetrator to court.

So great are the paradoxes and incongruities between the laws for pets and the laws for farm animals that they live in parallel universes. While pets recline on comfortable beds, are fed gourmet meals, amused with toys and pampered with grooming products, farmed animals are bedded on wire or slats or on litter saturated with their own excrement. They live in fear, pain and abject misery. Their lives, in effect, are perpetual torture. Legally sanctioned.

Pet owners can be prosecuted for allowing an animal in their care to become overweight (there is even a weight-loss drug for dogs). Meanwhile animals raised on an industrial scale - crippled and malformed by their alien fast-fattening diets - are plagued with obesity-related diseases. They suffer from fatty liver and kidney syndrome; from rickets and abnormal bone and muscle development; they are racked with leg weaknesses, lameness and joint diseases. Unnaturally rapid growth causes hearts to become enlarged and lungs congested; fluid builds up in the abdomen and the strain often results in heart failure (called 'sudden death syndrome' in the industry). Afflicted with infirmities, infections and disorders their lives are inherently unhealthy and diseased. If you treated your pet this way you would be prosecuted.

Yet when we buy the produce of factory farms we help perpetuate such suffering - and not just meat eaters. 70% of calves born to dairy cows are raised for meat - making the dairy, beef and veal industries one and the same: in this way buying milk, cheese, butter and yoghurt supports the meat industry. And buying supermarket eggs supports an industry too large to care about the hens, where the discarded male chicks are thrown alive into mincing machines.

Only hands-on farmers have a relationship with their animals that is similar to the bond that pet owners have with their pets - and treat them with compassion. But the overwhelming majority of the UK's farmed animals are raised on an industrial scale. They are kept in an environment that is totally alien to their needs, shut up in sheds and treated with unmeasurable cruelty. Is there an assumption that farm animals feel differently from the way our pets feel? Do we imagine they do not feel pain, misery and are terrified when they cannot escape from other animals that attack them or the humans that round them up for slaughter?

This double standard - one law for pets, another for farm animals - invites the question; do we have any moral obligation to the animals we use for food?

 

Follow Sue Cross on Twitter: www.twitter.com/notafactoryfarm

FOLLOW UK LIFESTYLE
Most pets in most countries are protected by laws that oblige their owners to protect them from pain, suffering and injury. And these owners must give them a suitable environment so they can 'exhibit'...
Most pets in most countries are protected by laws that oblige their owners to protect them from pain, suffering and injury. And these owners must give them a suitable environment so they can 'exhibit'...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 43
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul Wagland
Resistance is fertile
02:51 PM on 08/08/2012
I think the main reason we treat farm animals differently from pets is that we see our pets every day, but meat eaters never see the animals they eat. If you hide the birth, life and death of farm animals from public view, and only show people a neatly shrink-wrapped, sterile piece of meat in a supermarket, how can you expect the average person to imagine how the meat was produced? People are too busy (and lazy) to think about stuff like that.

I suspect farm animals were much better treated when they were on display in every farm yard and field, and there was an abattoir in every town. These days the only people who deal directly with the animals are desperate to turn the biggest profit they can - which is not conducive to good husbandry.
01:20 PM on 08/08/2012
Farms are regulated like no other industry. We farm and have inspections almost weekly from FQAS farm quality assurance, British lion mark for eggs, RSPCA freedom foods, OF&G organic certification, DEFRA inspections and supermarkets own inspections. Some of these inspections are unannounced but they do all cover 90% the same materal. No other industry is as regulated, who inspects all the pets that are rehomed, abandoned, mistreated every day. Very few farm animals abandoned. Lots of parts of the world are not suitable for growing crops except for grass. Let the vegans eat grass if they want
12:45 PM on 08/08/2012
Freedom foods ? RSPCA rely on abottoirs to self declare they will stunn end of lay hens before having their throats cut and bled for their acredited hens ??
Box ticking at its worst, get this they wrote to every abottoir to ask them to self declare
Hyprocrisy at its worst as long as the box is ticked its ok ???
05:54 PM on 08/07/2012
Perhaps before making rash statements like you have, you should visit a farm. Because you're report is far removed from any farm i know. There are bad farms and farmers that give the industry a bad name, just as there are bad reporters that do likewise to the media. Don't tar everyone with the same brush. There are a lot of dam good farmers out there who put a lot of hours, worry, stress and care into looking after the animals on their farm. Maybe we should all just stop producing food and see how long the country lasts on imports?! Imports where you have absolutly no idea of how the food is produced! And we all know how powerless we are to do anything to control the cost of imports, look no further than fuel!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul Wagland
Resistance is fertile
08:49 PM on 08/07/2012
We'd be able to feed many more people if we stopped farming animals. Between seven and 20 times more energy goes into making a meat-based meal than a plant-based one.
09:31 PM on 08/07/2012
and how exactly are you going to feed the planet on plants?! Step into the real world!
05:46 PM on 08/07/2012
A very ill informed piece of reporting, far removed from the truth! Don't tar every farm with the same brush. As there are good reporters and bad reporters, there are good farmers and bad farmers. I'm off for a steak.
06:30 PM on 08/07/2012
There are good farmers and bad farmers just as in any walk of life but that is not the issue. The central premise of the article is that double standards are applied in terms of how pets are treated compared to animals in other circumstances. That is undeniable even though the capacity for mammals to suffer is broadly similar. Humans are morally inconsistent in how animals are treated and the law recognises this. This is illustrated by the fact that livestock and laboratory animals are exempt the Animal Welfare Act 2006. If this act was applied to these groups of animals it would put an end to almost all intensive farming practices and much animal experimentation. This simple fact supports the claims of inconsistency which is the main point of the article. Regarding the article being ill informed I did not find it so and would be interested to know which part of the article this is reference to. The author recognises that 'hands on' famers tend to have higher welfare standards. Her criticism is directed towards the industrial production line ethos of how much livestock is produced. Her comments are entirely valid and most good farmers would acknowledge this. This way of agricultural production also causes a great deal of environmental damage.
09:05 PM on 08/07/2012
Suggest you first tackle the problem of Halal meat, before criticising Brit farms
photo
Lykos
Nobody Never Eat No Fifty Eggs
05:00 PM on 08/07/2012
In a world of 7 billion people - however decadent - it would be nice to be able to treat all the animals we're going to eat with as much respect as we can... But if we cannot afford to, it should perhaps be remembered that we already drew the line enough to eat them or their offspring... To get maudlin about their feelings seems somewhat redundant to me - as if they'd care that we "felt really, really bad about it." (Put yourself in their position - someone kills you and eats you, does "sorry" make the tiniest difference?!)
Living on a tight budget, i often have to find myself saying "F*** 'em, they're chickens" and buy eggs from caged hens or severely reduce the number of meals i can make... Does that make me a callous git? Yes... *but*, i suggest, only as much as eating their young - and eventually, them, does.
09:09 PM on 08/07/2012
The Lion does not apologise to the Antelope as it grips it's throat causing it to die from asphyxiation.
photo
Lykos
Nobody Never Eat No Fifty Eggs
09:37 PM on 08/07/2012
The Lion, we both has to accept, cannot comprehend the concept of an apology.
If that were the case, the Antelope would be saying...
"*You're* sorry?!  I was wearing my brother's best bowtie!"
photo
Lykos
Nobody Never Eat No Fifty Eggs
05:00 PM on 08/07/2012
Plants - it has been shown - feel pain, communicate, and are alive. If you're looking for a way to exist without asserting an arrogant statement that man has more right to live than some other living thing; in reality you're going to find it difficult. As humans we need to feed off things that are alive. We each come to terms with that as best we can, in our own way...
But often it is our idea of the level of intelligence/personality that we anthropomorphically apply to these lesser living beings. I'm an omnivore - i consider it the best kind of diet, and the most affordable - i accept the cruelty of my position, try to limit it as much as i can (and as much as i can afford to, too); I'm not ashamed of my oppression of creatures and plants, but i'd like to think that it would take the extreme threat of starvation before i'd ever even consider eating an ape, a dolphin, a dog, a cat, a whale, or a fellow human being for that matter... After that, for me it's deciding where on the greyscale spectrum you settle as 'the line'.
06:34 PM on 08/07/2012
What evidence is there that plants feel pain? Any published peer reviewed papers you can refer to?
photo
Lykos
Nobody Never Eat No Fifty Eggs
09:12 PM on 08/07/2012
Plants are "alive"?? Is this a case of "It's life, Jim, but not as we know it".
photo
Lykos
Nobody Never Eat No Fifty Eggs
09:39 PM on 08/07/2012
Um.  That one's not new, not contested.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/life
02:38 PM on 08/07/2012
DEFRA and other organisations - the meat and fisheries people - DO oversee the rearing of livestock. Organisations such as the RSPCA safeguard the welfare of lab and livestock animals, producing guidance documents. They also have hand-on officers to hadnle domestic animals. This article gives the impression that there is a disparity that is much more stark than it really is. I believe that I am qualified to make this assertion have directed such an organisation myself.
06:49 PM on 08/07/2012
This shows a poor understanding of the realities for livestock and laboratory animals. The statement that DEFRA and other organisations 'oversee the rearing of livestock' is misleading as is 'organisations such as the RSPCA safeguard the welfare of lab and livestock animals.' In fact the RSPCA has no right of entry to laboratories or farms so this statement is meaningless. DEFRA don't have the staff to do regular welfare checks on farms. How many prosecutions have DEFRA instigated against farms, virtually none. The difference between how pets and other animals are treated by society as is indeed stark as this article illustrates. For somebody who claims to be 'qualified to make this assertion' the comments here are ill informed.
10:11 PM on 08/08/2012
Is anyone who dares to say anything against the grain is clearly ill-informed? ETS 123, Directive 86/609 and other such legislative and guidance frameworks ALL came into being as a direct consequence of organisations such as DEFRA, the RSPCA and NGOs in animal welfare. Oversight and overseeing are different things - the latter - a function to watch and monitor - is, indeed, something several NGOs and DEFRA have done in the past. You are right - there are no rights of emtry but such organisations assemble committees (much like the one I chair myself) where investigations are conducted and that report upwards to draw attention to the poor treatment of animals.

You clearly believe I am deluded. What qualifies your comments? I would really like to know why you believe yourself to be qualified to dispute what I understand from working with DEFRA and the RSPCA.

Please, feel free to make further comments as you feel fit. I will reply should time permit.
08:43 PM on 08/06/2012
A good comparison. I was raised on a farm and we treated our animals with respect and always named the baby calves, bottle fed them when they needed it and looked after them, knowing full well that they would one day make it to the dinner table. Most small farms adhere to this philosophy, whereas most large commercial farms, or puppy mills for that matter, treat their animals with the bottom dollar in mind first. Sad state of affairs IMO. Animals have a purpose, be it food, clothing, or companionship and should be treated humanely. Organizations like PETA started out with a good purpose but miss the mark in thinking that no animal should be eaten or harvested for the purpose they were created. Oh yea, I'm a hunter also and abhor anyone who kills for the sake of killing or just to hang on the wall. If you kill it, eat it or use it's hide for clothes. If I'm killed by a bear or shark for my meat, I will not complain, as I am in their perceived food chain.
12:49 PM on 08/07/2012
Lovely post. I have no problem with people that hunt for the pot. Someone once said 'I wonder how many of us would be vegetarian if slaughter houses had glass walls.'
02:18 PM on 08/07/2012
You're right about that! I visited a slaughter house on a school field trip once and it was horrible! All the children complained to their parents and the owner actually cleaned up his act. He was a good business man and the changes he implemented definately hurt his bottom dollar, but I think he sleeps better at night. The changes were simple. He decreased his inventory to cut down on over crowding, cut down on the filth and the animals were treated much better. Many anti-hunters fail to realize that hunters feed the deer year round, thin the herd, thus reducing the numbers killed on the roads and most only kill what they can eat. Our native American brothers had it right...they only killed what was needed and revered their prey as fellow brethren who gave up their lives to sustain the tribe. Somewhere down the line we perverted this idea. In all the history books, I've never read where the Indians ever had too much credit card debt or a housing bubble or shortage for that matter. We have grown too selfish and greedy!
02:18 PM on 08/07/2012
I agree with the sentiments in relation to the need for responsible and humane farming, but have to query the statement "animals have a purpose" for which "they were created". I cannot agree with the idea that the whole planet and every living creature on it is part of some great supermarket for humans. It seems to me to be supreme arrogance. We are privileged to share the earth with other living sentient creatures - they are not mere commodities for our divine disposal. I doubt that if you were killed by a bear or a shark you would believe that your "purpose for which you had been created " was to supply some other creature with a meal!
03:02 PM on 08/07/2012
All throughout nature, there is a food chain with each living thing having it's place. That is a fact and not arrogance. If you believe in creation, then we were created to be at the top of that food chain. If you believe in evolution, then we have evolved to be at the top. No one complains when other animals do what they need to do in order to survive. Some predators have evolved as meat eaters, others have not. The meat eater shouldn't be criticised for his path, nor the plant eater his. My point was/is that we should only harvest what is needed and to be respectful to nature for what it has provided. Being the master of our domain doesn't give us the right to abuse our position. If I were killed by a bear, it would probably be because I was perceived as a threat and if by a shark, then I was probably mistook for a seal. Either way, it is that certain animals way of reacting to the way it was designed and any complaint I would have would be unjustified.