From ANIMAL PEOPLE, September 2010: (published October 5, 2010)
“Zero grazing” vs. the Five Freedoms
FEW ANIMAL ADVOCATES doubt these days that the use and misuse of more than 47 billion farmed animals worldwide is the most urgent and critical issue before us. Whether one favors ushering humanity toward vegetarianism or veganism, or only more nuanced efforts to reduce and mitigate animal suffering in husbandry and slaughter, animal agriculture involves many times more animals and more misery than all other human activities combined.
Farm animal welfare has also become a priority for consumers, voters, governments, and even agribusiness itself. Probably the most significant achievement of animal advocacy, recently or ever, is that animal product marketers now feel compelled to use terms such as “cage free” and “free range” in their advertising and on product labels, and that most major U.S. supermarkets now stock vegetarian and vegan products, from block tofu to whole heat-and-serve meatless meals.
Hansen had some reason to think so. Despite the certainty of slaughter at an early age, most farmed animals in the mid-20th century got a great deal more fresh air, sunshine, and outdoor exercise than laboratory and zoo animals. Even in the U.S., many dogs and most cats still foraged and hunted on their own for most of their food, were not allowed indoors, and never received veterinary care.
Elsewhere, in nations where the full cycle has not yet occurred, stimulating animal husbandry has often merely depleted soil and water. The July/August 2010 ANIMAL PEOPLE editorial, for instance, detailed how the effects of doubling livestock production in only 10 years destroyed topsoil and water holding capacity across much of Pakistan, contributing to catastrophic floods.
Partly this may be a matter of oversight: until farmed animal welfare became a focal issue, such policy statements were seldom needed. Animal advocacy organizations may also wish to avoid possibly alienating meat-eating donors, and to avoid becoming marginalized by animal use industry attacks on a vegetarian or vegan policy as “extremist.”
Yet global public opinion may be racing ahead of animal advocacy strategists. Vegetarianism is now relatively well understood in much of the world. The concept of veganism is recognized in Europe and North America.
ANIMAL PEOPLE has editorialized since our very first edition in 1992 that pro-animal organizations should be forthrightly vegetarian in their food presentations at public events, and should as a matter of policy favor an end to animal slaughter.
We recognize, however, that even today many pro-animal organizations may remain reluctant–for cultural, strategic, and economic reasons–to define themselves as advocating for vegetarianism. We further understand that for organizations which set standards for animal husbandry–such as Compassion In World Farming, the Royal SPCA of Great Britain, Humane Farm Animal Care, the American Humane Association, and the Animal Welfare Institute–adopting a pro-vegetarian policy could be self-defeating. As a matter of strategy, organizations seeking to improve the well-being of farmed animals here and now are more-or-less obligated to operate as trusted allies of animal producers, whose certifications help producers using methods less onerous for animals to take market share from the rest.
The success of this approach is illustrated, ironically, by the debate spotlighted in the July/August 2010 edition of ANIMAL PEOPLE between the Humane Farming Association and the Humane Society of the U.S. over the concessions made by agribusiness representatives to avoid having an initiative similar to one passed in 2008 by California voters on the November 2010 Ohio state ballot. Not so very long ago leading animal advocacy strategists questioned whether political mobilization on behalf of farmed animals could even be done. Now the strategic question is whether the mobilizers are driving the best possible bargain against an industry which clearly wants to minimize public exposure.
What exactly that meant was not clearly explained. Clarified WSPA U.S. communications manager Laura C. Flannery almost a week later, “This means that Heifer signed the following declaration (there was no funding or pledge for funding involved): A universal declaration for animal welfare (UDAW) is crucial to achieving international recognition that animal welfare is important, not only to animals, but also to the people who care for them. By promoting better living standards for animals, we are in fact improving the lives of people. lf endorsed by the United Nations, UDAW would become a set of non-binding principles that would encourage nations to put in place or, where they already exist, improve animal welfare laws and standards.”
Had Smith and Flannery not so fulsomely praised Heifer International on August 23, their August 27, 2010 press release about the WSPA role in Pakistan flood relief might have passed without particular notice. Most of it paralleled releases about previous disasters in which WSPA partnered with local organizations, veterinary universities, and government agencies to feed stranded and starving livestock.
The trick is to help the animals without encouraging repetition and expansion of the practices that put them in crisis.
WSPA director general Baker, a vegan, is personally familiar with the Indus River region from his previous service as chief executive officer of the Brooke Hospital for Animals. Acknowledging unfamiliarity with Heifer International policies and history, Baker personally assured ANIMAL PEOPLE that, “We certainly do not want to encourage any expansion of animal agriculture,” either in Pakistan or anywhere else.
Baker cited as an example the Rural Backyard Poultry Development program, introduced by the Indian Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs in 2009 as an attempt to help local egg producers keep their remaining 30% of the Indian national egg market share, after losing 70% to industrial poultry conglomerates. The program is intended to help about 270,000 backyard egg producers over the next five years with a variety of technical and promotional assistance.
Merritt Clifton, a veteran investigative journalist specializing on animal issues, cofounded ANIMAL PEOPLE with Kim Bartlett in 1992. He has served as editor in chief of AP since its founding.

Print this post.

