On Wednesday night, Global TV (in Canada) aired an hour-long documentary produced and narrated by retiring newsreader Kevin Newman entitled “No Country for Animals.” I was hopeful that this documentary would be educational and valuable given that press for it suggested a strong animal rights component (from The Star, “Kevin Newman Tackles Animal Rights“). Unfortunately the program was marred by the standard confusions that are peddled in the media regarding the treatment of animals: “rights” stands in for “welfare” thereby excluding actual discussions of rights; a being can at once have “rights’ and be subjected to the capricious whims of a more powerful being. Newman’s conclusion is in line with the rest of animal “welfare” movement: the state should take a stronger role in enforcing existing animal welfare standards and improve them when necessary, focusing upon confinement (gestation crates and battery cages) and transportation because animals are “sentient,” and that consumers should go out of their way to purchase “happy meat,” again because animals are “sentient.” Accordingly, we are shown trucks overladen with pigs and cows, puppy mills, and auction houses, but at no point are we shown a slaughterhouse. A sentient being, we are told, can suffer and we owe it to the animal to not force it to suffer. However, the rule is not applied to animals because they merit moral consideration, but because the treatment of animals reflects upon the society as a whole: a civilized country cannot act in this way. In other words, “animal welfare” is not for the benefit of the lives animals, but for the benefit of the conscience of the human consumer.
The problem with Newman’s documentary–and most “exposes” we find in the newspapers and on TV–is that they begin with the correct premise: an animal can suffer and an animal has an interest in not suffering. After this Newman’s documentary becomes hopelessly confused. He is correct to point out that animals are treated as chattel under Canadian law and that this entails that an animal can be reasonably and legally treated as though it were no different from a table or an iPod. (However, the paragons of animal welfare that Newman points to–Switzerland, the Netherlands and Italy–also treat animals as property.) This, Newman seems to believe, is what enables and justifies confinement in gestation crates, battery cages, 52 hour legal transport times, and puppy mills. However, Newman then makes two incongruent moves from this point. First, he claims that killing an animal is not a harm to that animal (thus we need not concern ourselves with slaughterhouses) and therefore humans can consume flesh and other animal products without a guilty conscience. Second, animals should not be treated as though they are property, but with “love.” In effect, so long as we “love” the animals we consume, it is perfectly reasonable to “consume” those animals. However, to be a sentient being and not to be property (i.e., not to be chattel no different than a slave or a teacup) excludes being subject to the whims of a more powerful being (i.e., not to be consumed for the mere pleasure of a human). Put in other terms, one cannot coherently “love” an animal and produce that animal for consumption. The “organic” and “humane” farmer treats their animals as property in the same way as the industrial “farmer,” but markets their products through different terms: “humane,” “happy,” “loved.”
Rather than destroying industries that exploit animals for trivial purposes, Newman proposes that “activists” (one such “activist” is a “poultry scientist”) work with governments and corporations to reform the more egregious practices and perfect the less offensive ones. Consumers should press their butchers to supply “heritage breeds” and “happy meat” produced by farmers who “love” their animals. The true solution to the problem–adopt a vegan diet as a moral stance–is immediately excluded as “unrealistic” and “too difficult” by the “activist” at the centre of the documentary. (She is involved with Canadians for Ethical Treatment of Farm Animals [CETFA], which as its name suggests, is concerned only with “treatment” and not “use”–in other words, their goal is to make the exploitation of animals more efficient.) This is silly. After all, vegans live by one simple rule: avoid insofar as it is possible consuming animal products. Meat eaters must constantly make decisions: is this a meat that I can eat? (Why can I eat cow but not dog? Why can I eat pig but not human? Why can I eat goat but not snake?) Is this a fluid I can drink? (Why can I drink cow and goat milk, but not donkey or cat?) Meat eaters who will only consume ostensibly “happy meat” are even further hampered: Given that labels like “free range” and “organic” are largely meaningless, how can I know that these chickens are happy? Given that this animal was slaughtered, how can I know that it went to its death happily? The life of a meat eater is infinitely more difficult and complex than that of a vegan. The only distinction is that meat eating is normalized while abstaining from animal products is not.
As a result, rather than an interesting program, what was aired was “Michael Pollan for Dummies,” with the standard phrases: “humane treatment,” “happy meat,” “pay more, eat less,” “reputable breeder” and the like.
(More congratulatory discussion can be found here, here, and here.)
19 Comments
To the point, as usual, Craig, but perhaps “Michael Pollan for Dummies” is a needed first step, given the sorry state of affairs.
At the recent screening of Pig Business, Paul De Campo (Slow Food) called slaughter the “punctuation mark” that constrains the rights of the animals, and that it was impossible to square animal rights with animal welfare. He said that there is no such thing as humane killing.
As much as I enjoy Temple Grandin’s insights, I still cannot fathom how she does the work she does.
Tracey Worcester, who filmed PB, also had the aim of getting the word out to those who are not members of the choir. Especially those who believe cows, pigs and chickens run around in sunny fields, and puppies pop out of the clouds.
Dear Craig,
Unfortunately it seems that it is your article rather than Kevin Newman’s documentary regarding the Canadian legal system’s treatment of animals that is incredibly confused. First of all, you should really do more research concerning the legal status of animals in European countries before making claims that such countries also designate the property status to their animals. Rather, many European countries have changed the legal status of animals from “property” to a special status through which they are considered to be in-between persons and property. For example, Switzerland revamped its civil code several years back to get rid of the property status of animals. Germany has done the same thing.
Secondly, you complain about the fact how there was no footage of slaughterhouses in the documentary. Do you know how incredibly difficult it is to get footage of what occurs in slaughterhouses? EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. Essentially you need to be an well-established organization with resources (like PETA) dedicated to training individuals to go undercover, apply for a job in a slaughterhouse and gain the trust of the property owner and those who employ you. Since Canada lacks such organizations, that is why you NEVER see undercover footage of slaughterhouses in Canada (only footage of slaughterhouses in the US is available). Furthermore, even if the footage was available, it would be so disturbing that a respectable news broadcast station such as Global TV would simply not be able to show that kind of footage…too graphic, too gruesome.
OA: Would love to know the strategic steps Switzerland and Germany took to revamp their civil codes.
Smacking this hornet’s nest with a 2 x 4 won’t fix the problem.
I replied to Jan on her site.
O A (Ashlyn, I presume): if it can be bought and sold, it is, by definition, property regardless of whatever capacities or rights accrue to the thing (e.g., a building with a heritage designation remains property, but has the capacity to prevent certain uses, modifications, or destruction; a corporation is both property and a person–and according to SCOTUS, possesses political rights). Unless Europe suddenly became vegans and abolished all animal exploiting industries, it is the case that animals are property–regulated in some ways–but property all the same. The documentary begins with the claim, in effect, “the problem is that animals are treated as property.” This is correct. The conclusion is, “the solution is that animals should remain property, but we should be a bit nicer to it.” Is not correct. The solution is, “not to treat animals as property, but as beings possessing an interest in not suffering and in their own lives.”
Given that no substantial difference exists in slaughtering practices between the US and Canada, should Newman not have been able to find Canadian footage, he could have used existing footage from an American facility, labeled as such, with the quick comment, “It is hard, for obvious reasons, to get footage of slaughter. We weren’t able to find Canadian footage, but there are no substantial differences between how animals are slaughtered in the US and how they are slaughtered in Canada.” Then run the footage.
Twyla Francois is the activist with the group Canadians for the Ethical Treatment of Farm Animals; your posting does her and the fine work she is doing a real disservice. Her goal (and that of the organization) is emphatically NOT to make the exploitation of non-human animals more efficient. Quite the reverse, indeed; it is recognised by Francois and by CEFTA and was also acknowledged on the program that if these animals are treated better the farming of non-human animals will become less efficient–and consumers will have to pay more.
I emphatically agree that the best solution would be for all of us to be vegan–and I am sure Francois does too; as the program makes clear, she is vegan herself. But we are so very, very far away from that goal; surely the efforts she and others are making now to bring the horrors to light and try to bring SOME positive change repesent a step in the right direction. If all change must wait for a moment when a complete transformation can occur, then no real change will ever happen.
That said, I also think it helps to have some of us complaining that programs such as “No Country for Animnals” are not asking enough, that we should be going further. Much further! Ultimately, I see us all as being on the same side here.
Don, thank you for your comment. I haven’t read your novel yet, but I am looking forward to doing so.
As presented in the program, CETFA follows transport trucks from factory to auction (possibly to slaughterhouse–but Newman refused to go there). Upon arriving at the destination, they do their best to inspect the animals and convince government veterinarians to euthanize them should they qualify as “downers.” Superficially, doing so makes it more expensive to bring meat to the market: afterall, a euthanized cow cannot be sold for meat, thus losing its value as a commodity and thus incrementally raising the price of meat overall (or, alternatively, lowering the net profits per animal). Of course, what this overlooks is that loss is built in to the price of the meat already. This is clearly the case with the truck stopped at the Italian border: the possibility of a fine is already built into the cost of the meat and the transport. This is standard with any predictable product liability.
However, the result of this work–should CETFA be successful–is to force the industry to adopt practices that results in animals making it from factory to abbatoir intact, thus enabling them to be “processed.” If, as CETFA claims (and this is a reasonable claim), that a fifty-some-hour truck trip results in damaged meat and that a fourteen or twelve hour trip (with rests and water) does not result in damaged meat, the result is that more animals will make it to slaughter; i.e., they will not die in transport, they will not be deemed downers, etc. In other words, the work that CETFA does is industry advocacy–make it more humane; make it more efficient–and not animal activism. If the goal is to raise prices, then CETFA should attempt to end agricultural subsidies from the government to industry. I’ve read that without subsidies, a steak in the US would cost over $60.
Regarding being vegan, watch the documentary at about thirty-nine minutes (the link is in the post):
“[Newman] This is the choice we face as Canadians: greater protection for animals means more expensive meat, less meat, or no meat at all. And that’s asking a lot. Even Twyla realizes that. ‘I would prefer that animals not be used for anything, but I have difficulty going vegan myself, so can we ask people to make that much of a lifestyle change? I don’t know.’ [She says as she smiles unconvincingly and shakes her head.]
This clearly indicates that she is not vegan and that she does not endorse it for other people, after all, it is “difficult” and “asking too much.” It is just as wrong to eat an expensive burger as it is to eat a cheap burger–the extra cost doesn’t buy virtue. But, of course, this is besides the point: despite the press and tagline for the documentary, the idea of animal rights was never entertained.
The issue at hand is one of strategy. As many activists have argued, “humane,” “organic,” “free range,” and similar designations do not lead to a reduction in the consumption of animal products, but to a reduction in the guilt that people may otherwise feel about consuming animal products. Again, “humane” designations and the like work for the interests of industry and not for the interests of animals. CETFA is clear that it is “animal welfare” organization, liberally making use of the key words “compassionate treatment,” “humane treatment,” and the focus on “factory farming” (as opposed to farming as such, thus giving the “organic” and “heritage” farmers a clean pass).
I think the Documentary is successful in waking many people up to the suffering of food animals, since people have become extremely desensitized to their welfare.
If it would have been more graphic and presented the entire gruesome picture …or a strong attempt to convert all to become vegans, most people would become overwhelmed and/or found it too difficult to watch. Once people HAVE BECOME AWARE, many will decide to give up eating meat…the WANT must come from within.
I know for a fact hundreds of people have contacted Twyla to find out more and asked her what they can do to help…I believe she has provided them with some information.
The attempt to change such a long-standing animal welfare issue, whereby the majority of people have completely disregarded food animals as living sentient creatures and not grown on trees or in a saran wrap style, either through brainwashing or self-justification for eating them, can only be done in increments…
IT IS NOT REALISTIC TO EXPECT THESE CHANGES TO BE DONE IN ONE BIG SCOOPE!
You make a number of good points here. On one in particular I realise my poor hearing may have misled me; I had thought Francois said “I had difficulty going vegan myself” (which I took, perhaps wrongly, to imply that she had nevertheless succeeded in doing so), rather than “I have difficulty going vegan myself”–which clearly suggests she is not vegan.
I still think you are being pretty hard on people such as Francois who are working very hard to try to improve the lives of non-human animals, when more than 99% of humans are doing nothing. But I do acknowledge that gradualism can sometimes help to perpetuate larger systemic evils. I often find it very difficult to judge what the best approach is–or perhaps rather, what the best approaches are.
Me? I haven’t cut out clams or mussels–getting there, but not quite vegan yet! All the best,
Don
STOP BEING SO MEAN TO PEOPLE ON THE COMPUTER PAGES! CODDLE THEM AND TYPE SLOWLY SO THEY FEEL SAFE. ALSO, INSERT CAPS FOR EMPHASIS BECAUSE OTHERWISE PEOPLE MIGHT NOT KNOW THAT YOU ARE SAYING IMPORTANT THINGS.
WOOF!
I have trouble imagining a diet so heavy in shellfish that they are hard to give up! Singer, if I recall, does not have any particular objection to consuming shellfish. For my part, while it would seem that shellfish likely do not have “interests” in any sense of the term, lacking a brain and nervous system, I’d exclude them on the basis of being flesh.
I’d maintain that rather than “improving” the lives of animals on factories, in transport and during slaughter, it would be better to concentrate efforts on dietary change, while emphasizing (contra PETA, e.g.) that the change is an ethical choice and not a “health” or “lifestyle” or “environmental” choice–all these may be true, but they aren’t sufficient reasons for change. Secondly, I’d work at the governmental level to end animal agricultural subsidies. And, thirdly, I’d work at the governmental level to make the animal agricultural industry responsible for its externalities (e.g, pollution, health costs, labour costs, etc). None of this is as sexy as being a secret agent for the animals, but it seems to me to be a better strategy.
Well Craig stop writing about what you would do and do it…go ahead and work “on the government level” then tell us what you have achieved with respect to animal welfare.
In the interim, Twyla has received about 1,000 emails now…out of all of those, only two have asked where to find “humane meat”. Everyone else talked about going vegetarian or vegan!
What an interesting discussion.
If I could jump in on a few points, orry to be repeating myself Craig. About the work of CEFTA and the like. Twyla Francois was previously employed by Animals Angels, who I also worked for as (drumroll please) head of investigations. I can tell you with absolute confidence that the only places that they would be allowed to witness loading or unloading would be at auctions and potentially (from a distance) at the ‘production facilities’.
Having asked a number of times myself to witness unloading at a slaughter plant, this is not something that the slaughter
folks are amenable to. The one and only way to witness slaughter is via hidden camera.And it is also notable that there
is footage from inside the largest horse slaughter facility in Canada (the kill box at Bouvry Meats in Fort Macleod Alberta) that was aired recently (cutting out the really nasty bits of course) on CBC (about 5 months ago?).
On the question of welfare, rights, property,the role of activists in affecting change etc etc.. It seems to me that there exists a vast chasm between theoretical approaches to animal ‘rights’ (for lack of other hermeneutic devices) and the reality of suffering that exists. While I understand that we may just be making it easier for some producers to kill animals in ‘kinder…gentler’ ways, by expanding the animal product market into
the ‘humane’ ‘freerange’ niches, I would argue that 1) it is worth it if it will effectively reduce the atrocities committed throughout the entire lives of animals and 2) in the same way that organics created a “non-organic” in the mind of the consumer, ‘humane’ may facilitate consumer consciousness.
The blurry line between consumer guilt and consumer consciousness is shaky territory for debate. But if we look at the change in consumption that has
happened in the wake of the booming organics industry, there may be some promise (could this not also result in more veganism based on the normalization of the humane debate?).In fact, it is for this very reason that the livestock industries are barricading the way for humane labelling/certification in Canada (ie. what does this say about the conventional product).
Regarding CEFTAs work on transport. The question of transit times and food/water/rest intervals is only one of many aspects that are important to look at,(ie. use of vague language, segregation of species, transport of unfit animals, loading densities, etc etc). The complication here is
that regulating these elements of transport require prescriptive regulations (ie. prescribed details re. numbers, species for every component) and
industry/CFIAAgCAn is not going to let this happen. They are planning to rework the regs to make them outcomes based (ie. fines are applied if an animal dies
in transit). With prescriptive regulations when a truck arrives overloaded, the inspector has the option to lay a fine based on contradiction of the regulations. Because these regulations are currently in the process of amendment CEFTA is wise to push
for changes at this point. I would also argue that if the regulations actually protected animals during transit (especially in the case of ‘dairy’cows, ‘veal’ calves, and ‘spent’ hens and sows) the economic impact to the industries would be immense. Coupled with terminating subsidies this could have a big impact. However, it is arguably impossible (never say never?) for this happen given the strong relationship between the industries (Canadian Cattlemens, chicken Farmers of Canada, Canadian Pork Producers, Dairy Farmers of Canada etc etc) and the Canadian government.
And of course the same situation in the US.
As a last thought, I am just going to throw this out there. As an ethical being I am frought with hypocracies and contradictions. I think it is ok to personally wish the world was vegan, but fight for incremental changes (in doing so compromising personal beliefs). I would argue that it is pointless (and perhaps detrimental) to critique the livestock industries or consumers on the grounds that no matter how nice they are treated they are still killed for us to eat. I believe this because to date, the industry and government has used this argument of activist groups to fortify their own position (which the consumer has long related to) as good old wholesome meat n’potatoes folks, and who are these crazies that think babies and dogs should have equal rights? This really needs to change if animal advocacy is going to gain any footholds.
(note**I would say that this argument does not stand when it comes to vivisection and animal experimentation debates – it appears to be an altogether different dynamic)
When over sixty billion mammals and birds are killed annually for food globally–about a billion annually in Canada–it is hard to accept any form of incrementalism, especially if that incrementalism might, at best, save one or two animals per truck. Yes, the treatment of these animals is criminal and immoral, but I don’t see how saving a few thousand animals (I’m sure you have more accurate numbers, Michelle) who die in transport or who arrive as downers does much to improve the condition of animals overall. Indeed, should the industry acquiesce to basic demands of decency, they (1) can put this forward as an example of “how much they love their animals” and (2) can assure customers that animals are not only produced and processed in a “humane” manner, but also transported in a “humane” manner–so keep eating the meat!
Expose footage can be valuable, but the problem is that it is often portrayed–in the media and by the industry–as an “isolated incident.” “Sure, that factory had some problems, but they took some animal handling courses, the worst employees were fired, and they’ve voluntarily adopted industry guidelines. Don’t worry! Keep eating meat.”
At risk of repeating myself, I’m not opposed to a “consumer solution,” but it can’t be on the basis of “humane” or “happy” meat:
(1) Government subsidies for the meat and dairy agricultural industry should be ended immediately. That money should be put into other areas–be it inspections, investigations, or non-animal agriculture aimed at feeding humans (i.e., raise the cost of meat; lower the cost of vegetables). Subsidies in this case include state funded research, financial support, marketing support, and, at the local level, support for the meat and dairy industry at “farmer’s markets.”
(2) Make the industry responsible for its externalities, either via class-action lawesuits or built into the price in levies–that is, make the industry responsible for health, environmental, labour, etc costs that it currently imposes on society at large;
(3) Articulate pro-animal arguments in pro-animal terms: don’t make it into a fad of some sort (“vegetarians taste better! hee-hee!”);
(4) Work with municipal politicians to make animal exploitation more difficult, even if symbolic, at the local level: ban new meat processing factories; ban new industrial animal factories; ban sale of live animals at retail outlets; etc. The proposed pet sales ban in Toronto is a good example–as would any attempt to block change to the animals by-law in Ottawa which prohibits backyard chickens.
This is an interesting article from MP Wayne Easter’s website concerning the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Foods:
http://www.wayneeaster.com/media_reports_item.php?newsrel_id=485
I’m sorry Craig. I don’t get it.
I mean I get the problems you mention about the ‘humane’ thing, scapegoating etc. And sure the expose thing is not a complete solution (although in the case of the slaughter horse industry I think it provided new information to a lot of people who didn’t realize that Canada was killing so many horses for human consumption) – but a small piece of a bigger picture.
However, I don’t see how we can hope that changes that will involve the government (namely agCan whose sole mandate is to support and promote the growth and expansion of industrial agriculture in Canada and internationally) directly undermining industrial agriculture are going to take place any time soon.
But besides that, what about all of the meat-eaters.? It’s not just about eating meat its about a whole culture around the idea of meat, livestock, farming etc. The only people who even know what a vegan is live in urban centres in North America (I don’t think it is a wide spread concept even in EU, just personal experience).
So this large population (of meat eaters) is going to vehemenently oppose any move to make it more difficult for ‘farmers’. Farmers Feed Cities right? Which, at risk of repeating myself, gets back to the problem of animal advocacy being relegated to the fringes of public discourse because people can’t relate to the concept of not eating meat or dairy or any animal product. Consider the debates which took place around changes to the criminal code: it was so heavily weighted with arguments from the fishing/hunting/trapping lobby, the livestock lobbies etc.. And until these things are no longer the norm (ie. cattle farmers are good guys, and going fishing is a great way to spend the weekend), people will continue to relate to them more easily than veganism, or vegetarianism.
Sorry this may not be very coherent, it’s late. I will do some clearer thinking at a later date.
I am thrilled at the high level of discourse and debate occurring on this website. I’d love to see this issue hashed out amongst the greater public.
And to clarify one clip from the documentary that seems to have gained attention:When Twyla Francois talks about her personal difficulty in “going vegan” she is referring to her occasional consumption of cream in her coffee -She NEVER eats flesh,cheese, etc.
Thanks for the clarification, Karen. As they say, there is as much–if not more–suffering in a glass of milk as in a steak.
I am a vegetarian, on my way to being a vegan. I believe all animals are sentient, feel pain and suffer as you and I would. But, I am not naive enough to think we can convince the public to give up meat entirely. This fight needs to be done in small steps. I know that is not what alot of animal activist want to hear, but, it is realistic. First thing that needs to be done is change the animal welfare act, bring it into the 21st. century. Just my two cents.
There is no “Animal Welfare Act” in Canada. At the federal level, there is the Criminal Code and the provinces have a series of individual, ill-conceived acts. For instance, in Ontario, there is Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the Pounds Act, and the Animals for Research Act.
Post a Comment