Guest blog – The Ethics of Animal Exploitation part 4 by Alick Simmons
Alick Simmons is a veterinarian, naturalist and photographer. After a period in private practice, he followed a 35-year career as a Government veterinarian, latterly as the UK Government’s Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer. Alick’s lifelong passion is wildlife; he volunteers for the RSPB and NE in Somerset, is chair of the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, a member of the Wild Animal Welfare Committee and a trustee of Dorset Wildlife Trust. A particular interest of his is the ethics of wildlife management and welfare. He is pictured above on the People’s Walk for Wildlife in September 2018.
Thus far, I haven’t advocated any particular position although it is inevitable some of my views have come to the surface in the course of the first 3 parts. I am not vegan or vegetarian although I have often thought about becoming one or the other. During the course of a career as a veterinarian, I have had the benefit of being able to ‘lift the lid’ on all manner of animal exploitation both in the UK and overseas. I haven’t always liked what I’ve seen but neither was it universally awful. In fact, there is much to commend. Some, but only some, questionable practice is worth tolerating given the benefits to humankind.
Assuming you’ve assimilated parts 1-3 you might reasonably ask ‘what’s the next step?’ Earlier in the series, I proposed a personal ethical framework. I suggest you consider your position, species by species and system by system. You might conclude that none is acceptable. On the other hand, you might choose to accept the exploitation of some species in some circumstances but not in others. My only plea is that you seek out and use the best information to make choices and not be swayed by siren voices.
Much of this series has been about animal welfare and the ethical choices we make. However, our choices can and should be about more than just animal welfare. There are three additional factors I advocate taking into account; they are health, environment and biodiversity. I am expert in none but for what it’s worth, here’s my take:
Health: Evidence is mounting that eating large amounts of meat and dairy products is not good for your health. This applies particularly to fresh meat containing large amounts of saturated fats and to meat products such as bacon where nitrites are used as a preservative. Red meat is particularly singled out.
Environment: Livestock farming is a net contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and we are being encouraged to eat less meat as part of managing climate change. However, some meats have a smaller carbon footprint than others. Beef is particularly high while poultry meat is relatively low. In essence, the larger the animal and the longer it takes to mature, the more greenhouse gas per kilo. And monogastrics (poultry and pigs) because of their digestive system produce less than ruminants (cattle and sheep). It is argued that some of the carbon footprint from lamb and beef produced from permanent grassland can be offset against the carbon sequestered in the soil and pasture. However, in comparison to woodland which some argue should be used to replace pasture land, this is trivial.
Biodiversity is not something you would normally associate with a discourse about animal exploitation and meat eating. But well managed grazing is good for bird life. For example, without grazing, particularly in the lowlands, four species of breeding waders, snipe, curlew, redshank and lapwing, the populations of which are in free fall, would almost certainly disappear. One might argue grazing might be better done by native ruminants such as roe and red deer but there is nothing like a cow for removing large amounts of grass and other vegetation. And, because they allow for the free expression of most normal behaviour, extensive grazing systems are amongst the best for animal welfare. I should make it clear that I do not hold the same sentiments for sheep, at least those grazing the uplands. There are many reasons why much of upland Britain is free of native woodland. Most of them are sheep.
It soon becomes clear that there is a conflict between these factors. Those systems that are amongst the best for welfare (extensive cattle and sheep production) and, in some cases supporting high biodiversity, have the worst carbon footprint while pig and poultry production, at least those with any commercial prospect, because of their intensive nature and rapid growth, have the worst welfare and the lowest carbon footprint. I told you it was complicated.
There is no easy answer to this. I’ve thought about this and haven’t reached a conclusion. Of course, it would be simpler to become vegan and have done with it but the initial choice appears simplistic (although I am under no illusion about how difficult it is to do properly). Perhaps part of the reason why I haven’t become vegan is that a feels like a repudiation of my life to date and my whole career. I happen to enjoy many types of meat but that shouldn’t be the sole reason to carry on if the evidence against meat consumption continues to pile up. Conversely, if there is sufficient, robust information about good livestock production systems, etc where the evidence of good welfare is clear, then why not?
Other than complete abstinence, the only conclusion is to eat less and better meat from sources you can trust. Obtaining information that engenders that trust is difficult but for meat you cook at home it is not impossible. Ask and if you are aren’t happy with the answer, err on the side of caution. But meat for the home is only a small part of it. It gets very much more difficult in a restaurant: Have you ever asked about the way the chicken on the menu was reared? And been content with the answer? No, nor have I.
What about animal products such as leather? Try asking the salesperson about the provenance of your leather shoes when you are next trying them on. Let me know how far you get. I was once in a posh mall in the USA and idly asked the salesperson in a shop selling shaving gear about the provenance and welfare of the badgers that had supplied the bristles for the brushes. ‘Oh’, she gushed, ‘You needn’t worry about that. They’re not American badgers’. I now have a beard.
To illustrate my current position, I’ve produced this table. It’s a work in progress.
I emphasise this is my personal position: It’s not a blueprint but it might be useful as a template. I don’t claim perfection: There is science behind it but it is also driven by personal choice and my own ethical code.
There are two points that I have yet to cover and because neither seem to fit into the table, I will deal with these separately. The first one is pets. Should one keep a dog or a cat? Both are carnivores and cats tend to catch, kill and eat all manner of small wildlife. However, if you are resolutely vegan then you may be able to get away with making your dog vegan too. But not your cat. Dogs are not obligate carnivores and can survive well on a non-meat diet of the right composition. On the other hand, cats are obligate carnivores will not thrive without animal protein. It’s that simple.
I’ve received stick for admitting to keeping cats because of the belief that cats are to blame for much of the decline in British wildlife. The jury is still out and I await the results of a scientific survey in which I and my cats participated (https://wildlifescience.org/portfolio/domestic-cats/). If it proves that cats do have a significant impact on native wildlife, then I will take appropriate action. As I am neither a hunt servant nor a greyhound trainer, I will not treat them as an inconvenience and shoot them in the head but rather I will restrict their activities as they grow older and eventually die.
The second one is fish including angling, commercial fishing and aquaculture. I’ve fished since my early teens but never very well. As evidence of the detrimental effects of fishing with hooks combined with knowledge of fish sentience and the ability to feel pain builds up, I have increasing qualms about it. But I love to sea fish and, at present, if the few fish I catch are dispatched quickly and eaten then I can live with it. Commercial sea fishing, however, often involves suffocation of thousands of fish at a time often after having been dragged up from the depths which, in itself, because of the changes in pressure, must cause suffering. Work is underway to better understand this and to mitigate the effects of net fishing on welfare. Should we stopping catching and eating fish? I don’t know, but I am keeping it under review. I have similar qualms about aquaculture or fish farming: poor welfare, difficulties in controlling disease and the environmental impacts all detract from what was a promising industry. I find my consumption of farmed salmon, for example, dwindling fast.
It is inevitable that, if you change your diet, you will become the subject of interest to your friends and perhaps you’ll feel the need to explain. Here’s a few tips:
Don’t flagellate yourself: By all means, stick to your beliefs but don’t be a martyr. I choose not to eat pheasant, grouse or partridge (see table above) but I am not going to scourge myself if I find the paté I ate at that party contained pheasant. Be aware, try your best but be practical.
Despite that I encourage you to err on the side of caution: For example, if you are buying ready meals or in a restaurant and there is no information about the provenance of the meat, I’d avoid it. Or, better still, ask.
Don’t evangelise. Especially at social events. By all means explain but don’t think you have to convert the world. No one wants a sermon at a party. Alternatively, try blogging.
Keep it under review. Be prepared to change your mind when new facts or better information emerges. I say better information because you might want to reverse a decision not to eat, say, pork, when a local producer starts to sell pork from a system that you are comfortable with. Or stop wearing leather shoes when someone produces all synthetic shoes which don’t look like something your 5 year old would wear.
Try to consider things holistically. Decisions like this are rarely black and white. For example, eschewing beef might help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and might be better for your health but this has to be set against the value of some grazing animals that enhance biodiversity. It might be better to eat smaller amounts of better beef less frequently and from a producer you trust.
That’s it. It’s certainly not the last word and it’s not the only word. On the face of it things are changing. Interest in veganism is increasing with more people than ever claiming to have adopted a vegan diet. However, meat consumption in the UK is not falling and consumption of poultry meat is steadily increasing. With poultry having amongst the worst welfare of any farmed animal that is not good news. It’s enough to turn you off meat altogether. But if, like me, you believe humankind benefits from well-regulated and sympathetic animal exploitation, then it’s not a binary choice. I want people to take intelligent, evidence-based decisions. Making sense about animal welfare, animal rights and animal exploitation is difficult particularly as much of the available information it is contradictory, polemical and bordering on a rant. It isn’t helped by companies falling over themselves trying to establish their green and animal welfare credentials. A lot of it is greenwash but there are companies that genuinely care. Sorting the wheat from the chaff is difficult.
Don’t give up. Read about it, question and think about it. You don’t have to change your habits much or at all. It’s your choice. You might yet become vegan. So might I.
The objective was to get you thinking and if I have succeeded, then all to the good. Judging by some (but no means all) of the thoughtful comments stimulated by the first three posts, I have achieved that with some people. For now, mission accomplished.