How veterinarians should respond to animal welfare concerns
Monday, August 5, 2013
Food-animal veterinarians have not responded well to the criticisms of animal rights activists nor always to the concerns of everyday consumers. In this article, excerpted from a 2011 lecture, an Ontario veterinarian lays out his formula for a more constructive approach
by TIM BLACKWELL
Few people have a better grasp of animal welfare than practising veterinarians. However, in discussions on animal welfare, veterinarians are too often silent and feel uncomfortable defending modern animal agriculture against some of the more outlandish claims of animal rights extremists.
In the majority of our experiences, good farms employing good stock people dominate. Critiques of animal agriculture often originate from so far outside our normal sphere that we are often unsure of the best way to respond to them. However, to be silent while less well-informed individuals pontificate on the welfare of domestic animals increases public confusion over what is happening on livestock farms and who is responsible.
A second reason why food-animal veterinarians are reluctant to engage in animal welfare debates is that some of our earliest efforts to defend modern livestock production were poorly executed and did not stand up to close scrutiny. In this article, I will attempt to establish a solid foundation on which veterinarians can defend modern livestock agriculture against the criticisms of our most strident critics.
The following are some of the traditional defences of livestock agriculture that I have used in the past and that have consistently failed to win a single argument for me.
Statement #1: Without the highly restrictive housing of livestock, we would not be able to feed the planet. The price of food would rise, and poor people all over the world would suffer.
Doomsday predictions about scarcities of resources have been made on a regular basis for most of our lifetimes. Seldom, however, have we experienced even temporary shortages of food, water, fresh air or fuel.
The largest problem with food today in the developed world is over-consumption. The argument that, without sow crates, people will go hungry has no basis in fact. The price of pork is not a reason why vulnerable populations in developed or developing countries are malnourished. You will not find any social scientist or poverty expert to back you on this argument. Avoid empty threats.
Statement #2: Consumers should not tell swine farmers how to raise pigs.
This statement immediately offends the vast majority of the population that does not raise pigs but consumes pork. A buyer of any product has the right to critique that product. Any industry that is not interested in their customers' comments or opinions on a product is an industry in decline. John Deere does not tell crop farmers that their evaluations of John Deere machinery are of no interest to them. They don't state that grain farmers lack expertise in the manufacture of farm machinery and therefore have no business commenting on how John Deere makes tractors.
If we don't listen to our customers, if we imply that they should buy what we produce and be thankful they have product on the shelves, then we are finished.
Statement #3: Animals do not have rights. Only people have rights.
People in comas have rights, unborn children have rights, severely mentally disabled people have rights. We award rights to those in need of them. The weaker and more vulnerable an individual is, the more critical it is that we ensure their rights are protected. Domestic animals are completely dependent on us by virtue of their domestication. From a legal context, all domestic animals have the right to adequate food, water, shelter and freedom from unnecessary suffering. There is no doubt in the public conscience that domestic animals are innocent and vulnerable and need to have their rights protected. To deny this is to put yourself in a very dark place in the public conscience.
Statement #4: I do not believe in animal rights. I believe in animal welfare.
Such word games inhibit useful debate as people try to understand the real issue. If you are concerned about the welfare of swine, then you believe that animals have a right to certain standards of welfare (or that caretakers have responsibilities to see to certain welfare standards). If animals are entitled to a certain standard of welfare, then those standards are the animals' rights.
Statement #5: The animal rights movement has only one goal: to make us all into vegetarians and to bring an end to livestock agriculture.
It is true that some animal rights extremists wish all people were vegetarians. Extremists are difficult to deal with, but we do not discount an entire group because it contains extremists.
Average animal rightists are moderates. They want animal products from animals whose welfare is reasonably attended to. We must engage this moderate majority in discussions on animal welfare. This moderate majority wants to eat meat but wants assurances from people they can trust that the animals supplying that meat are well cared for.
Veterinarians are the people they prefer to trust in this regard. Do not use animal rights extremists as an excuse to avoid discussions on animal welfare. Our customers desire and require our expertise. We have their trust. Our silence on this issue is a sure way to lose that trust.
Statement #6: If we agree to the current demands for improved welfare, animal welfare groups will quickly come back with even greater demands.
Veterinarians also are concerned because there appears to be no endpoint when it comes to improving the welfare of animals. But this is not a reason for concern. John Deere is not worried that they have to continually improve their equipment. Any veterinarian who believes they have reached the final endpoint in animal welfare should retire because their work, by definition, is complete.
Statement #7: I accept swine welfare as long as it is science-based.
This argument misses the point entirely. Animal welfare and rights are founded not in science but in our cultural beliefs regarding right and wrong. Rights are not founded in science. They are based on the consensual ethics of a population. There is, however, a very important role for science in animal welfare. If the voting public decides that sows should not be confined in a gestation stall, then animal scientists will help identify what housing systems work best to replace gestation stalls. Science helps us put our ethical beliefs into practice.
Statement #8: Animal rights groups focus on rare but extreme instances of animal abuse or neglect.
This is a terrible rebuttal to documented cases of animal abuse. When a livestock caretaker is caught on video abusing an animal, we as an industry must immediately and without reservation condemn the abusive act and instantly take the necessary steps to eliminate any possibility of similar activity. It is not necessary to condemn an individual, but we must without hesitation condemn the actions of that individual. There are no justifications for animal abuse, and we should never try to diminish or dilute such horrendous events by referring to all the good stock people on farms.
Statement #9: There is nothing in intensive livestock agriculture that is illegal. We have nothing to apologize for.
The laws of a country are only one method of distinguishing between right and wrong. Concepts regarding what is legal and what is illegal lag behind current views or popular culture regarding what is right and what is wrong. Laws reflect the popular ethic at the time those laws were created. Given time, laws catch up to the popular ethic.
The recent referenda in California, Arizona and Florida attest to this. The European Union has made illegal most traditional forms of restrictive livestock housing. The popular ethic regarding restrictive housing of livestock is clear. Colorado, Ohio, and the United Egg Producers saw this and assumed the lead on housing reform before they were legislated to do so. Australian pork producers also voluntarily placed a ban on sow stalls.
If we are not in agreement with the popular ethic, we must be prepared to argue very effectively and persuasively that it is wrong, though this is a very risky position to take and one not likely to produce positive results. Greater rewards come from using our experience and training to help the swine industry adjust housing and management practices to coincide with the consensual ethic of our customers.
Statement #10: Urban people think farm animals should be treated like their house pets.
This statement, although obviously absurd, is nevertheless worth considering. No one really thinks that a sow should sleep in the house like the family pet. However, our customers do not want a pig to suffer unnecessarily any more than they would want that for their house dog. Such a sentiment is sensible and honourable.
We know that it is impractical to provide the same anesthesia or analgesia to a piglet during castration that our small-animal colleagues provide to a dog or cat. However, that does not mean that a desire on the part of a consumer to relieve suffering, wherever or whenever possible, is worthy of derision. A reasonable response is to agree that causing unnecessary pain is wrong, and we regret that it is currently impractical to perform surgery on swine farms in the same manner it is done in small-animal hospitals. We must admit that the current situation is not our ideal and that we are looking for ways to improve upon it.
If you can resist the urge to repeat the above statements, you will avoid many of the common traps that have tripped me up in discussions on the welfare of livestock in modern production facilities.
It is critical that we appreciate how much the public respects veterinarians as professionals. We can capitalize on this viewpoint by taking a clear and practical stance on animal welfare. The following practical stance can be useful when discussing animal welfare with any group:
1. Begin with the all-important admission that animals have rights (or if you must, that caretakers have responsibilities). These rights (or responsibilities) are enshrined in anticruelty legislation in all developed countries. They include the right to food, water, shelter, and reasonable efforts to avoid unnecessary suffering, which should include euthanasia when medical treatment is ineffective or cost-prohibitive. This position establishes you as an animal rights moderate and is a preferred position from which to debate. You can now more easily address the pros and cons of various changes to modern livestock production practices.
2. Many countries and jurisdictions within countries have legislated rights beyond those enshrined in anticruelty laws. These additional rights may include such things as the right to freedom of movement beyond what a traditional gestation stall, battery cage, or veal stall provides. These rights were not determined by scientific experiments any more than the rights of a child are determined by scientific experiments.
3. We should not think that our customers are out of touch with farming because they live in cities. Most people, regardless of their place of residence, believe that unnecessary suffering is wrong and should be avoided. Our customers' attitudes toward animal welfare have not changed dramatically over the years. They are not a new breed of irrational urbanites.
4. As veterinarians, we must demonstrate our commitment to continuous improvements in production efficiency, food safety, and animal welfare. We may not be able to make all the advances in swine welfare as quickly as some would like, but that does not mean that pursuing such advancements is unrealistic or can be ignored. The fact that we have not found a practical way to alleviate pain at castration in pigs should not lessen our commitment to improve the welfare of pigs during and after castration.
5. It seems that, as an industry, we do not always take criticism well, especially when it comes to the welfare of pigs. We are proud to tell consumers that 40 years ago it took 3.5 pounds of feed to produce a pound of pork and now it requires only 2.5 pounds. If those consumers asked us if we might do better in the future, I think most of us would respond: “Likely we can.” However, if we tell consumers that we keep sows in state-of-the-art buildings with computer-controlled ventilation and feeding systems and they ask if we could improve on that by giving sows more freedom of movement, we often respond that they have no business telling us how to raise pigs. We should have the same response to questions about improving sow welfare that we have to questions about improving feed efficiency: “Likely we can.”
To conclude, I will relate a story from the recent discussions Australian swine producers had about a voluntary ban on sow stalls. One side argued loudly that it was better to get in front of the rising tide of consumer dissatisfaction with sow stalls, while the other side argued that swine farmers were the salt of the earth and would not be bullied by a bunch of out-of-touch urbanites. The discussion degenerated into a shouting match and it appeared there would be no consensus that evening.
Then a middle-aged woman known to most in the auditorium got up and gave this short address. “I am so proud to be a swine producer. Everything I have I owe to pigs – my farm, my home, my children's education, the clothes on my back are all testaments to what swine farming has given me. I never hesitate to tell anyone what I do for a living. But I would be just that much prouder if we got rid of those crates.” And then she sat down to a silent room.
The chairman, having an astute sense of timing, called for a vote. The ban on crates passed. This Australian woman succinctly defined the position swine veterinarians should take in regard to animal welfare. Proud of all she had accomplished, but not willing to rest on her laurels, she wanted to be better and prouder still. Her stance should be our stance. BF
Timothy E. Blackwell, DVM, is an Ontario swine veterinarian. This article is excerpted with permission from the Roy Schultz lectureship series which he presented at Iowa State University on November 11, 2011.