|
The
Battle Over Welfare vs. Rights
Karen
Davis, Founder,
United Poultry Concerns
June 2005
Are
we really representing a caged hen's wishes when we say
that she would reject a touch of comfort short of total
liberation? And who, under any circumstances, would reject
a less inhumane death for themselves or for someone they
loved?"
Karen
Davis, Satya magazine, April 2005
A
welfare philosophy that supports exploiting animals "humanely" is
totally different from a rights philosophy that supports
efforts to reduce animal suffering in pursuit of animal
liberation. Yet some animal advocates insist that working
for welfare reforms is wrong regardless.
Granted,
all welfare reforms have risks. For example, the American
Veterinary Medical Association, in formulating its Position
Statement on Production of Foie Gras this year, added the
word "mechanical" to the proposed resolution: "Resolved,
that the AVMA opposes the practice of mechanical force feeding
of ducks and geese to produce foie gras because of the adverse
effects on the birds' health and welfare associated with
this practice."
Why
did the AVMA insert "mechanical"? Because
while the word "mechanical" rules out stressful
feeding tubes, it does not rule out feeding ducks and geese
high-energy rations that produce a liver that in sedentary
birds would still be abnormally fat. In other words, as a
concession to industry, the AVMA would allow passive overfeeding
while opposing the much more abusive practice of actively
ramming food down birds' throats.
In
another example, the U.S. trade group United Egg Producers
sought to undercut activists' efforts to stop forced molting
by claiming that if they couldn't molt their hens by depriving
them of food to regulate the economics
of egg production, they'd have to replace flocks more frequently,
doubling the number of birds and thus the amount of suffering
overall. But this didn't happen, as sustained activist
pressure brought United Egg Producers to encourage the
use of a molt diet "rather
than the traditional practice of withholding food."
Thanks
to our 12-year campaign, force-molting hens by starving
them is on the way out. Last year, the American Veterinary
Medical Association (AVMA) adopted a policy opposing molting
hens by taking away their food; and in March 2005, Gene
Gregory, Senior Vice President for United Egg Producers,
announced that within the next few months, UEP's "Animal Care
Certified" program will likely require "certified
care" producers to feed their hens instead of starving
them.
Does this mean that the 300 million hens rotting in U.S.
battery-cage hellhouses are now receiving humane care? Of
course not. What it does mean, however, is that billions
of hens in the U.S. will henceforth no longer be starved
in their cages, and that persistent, well-designed welfare
campaigns can mitigate animal suffering, even as we work
to modify consumer behavior by getting people to go vegan.
Urge
United Egg Producers to require that "Animal Care
Certified" egg producers house their hens in cage-free
environments and stop debeaking them.
Albert
E. Pope, President
United
Egg Producers
1720
Windward Concourse, Suite 230
Alpharetta,
GA 30005
(770) 360-9220
(770) 360-7058 fax
email
For more information on this issue, visit LINKS GALORE,
PICTURE GALLERY, WHAT YOU CAN DO, and BOOKS.
Top
of Page | Close
Window |
