Wake up and smell the bacon: Animal welfarism isn't working

Animal welfarism is no more absent today than it was in 1641 when the first animal welfare laws were written in the United States. We believe the powers that be are hard at work ensuring the best possible conditions for the nonhuman animals we call food.An everyday shopping experience is a validation for this. We are constantly discerning between products that are "ethically raised," "humanely slaughtered" or "cage free." We are led to believe there is a strong effort on the part of "compassionate" farmers to weed out producers like those shown on HBO's "Death on a Factory Farm," compiled from undercover footage by an animal welfare organization.

These conceptions are very attractive. They ensure we can continue to enjoy the fruits of animals while believing we are participating in a mutual or fair exchange. The reality of our relations to nonhumans shows us a truth we all have feared accepting: We shouldn't eat animals. If we care about sentient beings, we shouldn't even eat from them or use them as our property. That we derive a benefit from exploitation is not a moral justification.

First of all, welfarism doesn't work. Animals do not suffer because there is an out-of-control band of farmers who ignore the well-being of animals. In fact, an animal producer is probably more concerned with animal welfare than consumers.

This is simply an economic imperative. The profitability of animals relies on their being raised adequately enough to be turned into a profit and "healthy" enough to make it to the slaughterhouse where they are turned into meat, textiles and chemicals. Extra measures of welfare actually provide little, if any, amelioration for nonhumans.

Many supposed improvements are simply misleading. For instance, your cage-free eggs come from chickens whose lives began at a hatchery. Their brothers were suffocated at birth (males do not produce eggs), their beaks were singed blunt with a hot metal surface and they live in cageless but significantly crowded enclosures with little exposure to light and a constant atmosphere of nitrogenous fecal fumes. The life of egg-laying birds--cage free, free range or otherwise--is miserable.

Second, adjustments in nonhuman farming practices are either economically beneficial or neutral. Producers will not adopt standards that lead to an overall loss of profit. If they did, they would hand their customers over to a producer of lesser welfare and go out of business.

Many of the supposed improvements animal welfare organizations laud are actually praised by the animal industry because they allow for more efficient animal exploitation. Gassing birds and designing "better" slaughterhouses may be described in their impacts on the well-being of animals, but they are adopted in the first place as a means of reducing carcass damage, improving worker safety and increasing yields.

As animal rights and legal scholar Gary L. Francione describes it: "Of course it is better to do less harm than more harm. But that begs the fundamental question as to whether we can justify imposing the harm in the first place. If rape is wrong, we should not have campaigns for 'humane' rape. The same analysis applies to pedophilia, torture, murder, etc."

So the answer is not to eat eggs that are marketed as more humane nor "ethically"-enslaved animals, but no eggs and no meat. If you care about animals, if you wouldn't want any harm or death to your own kitten or puppy, you must go vegan.

If you are a vegetarian, consider the economic reality of animal property. Before going vegan three years ago this March, I was a vegetarian who believed there was nothing wrong with milk or eggs because one needn't kill the animal to get these products. Eventually, I learned the slaughterhouse trucks that passed me on the interstate were full of the dairy cows who produced my cheese and milk. I also met rescued free-range birds with cuts and broken beaks. Some were still struggling to run and play with their brothers and sisters on one leg.

The case for veganism simply cannot fit the limits of this column, however I will leave the reader to understand the issue is not just that welfarism does not work, it cannot work. As long as animals are property, the means of getting their bodies and secretions to our tables takes precedence over treating them well.

The reality is especially uncomfortable for consumers because it requires understanding the root of the problem is us, not those who handle the animals. They are merely doing our dirty work. We are the consumers and we create the demand. If we acknowledge the inherent value of the animals who share our homes, we have an ethical imperative to challenge the property status of animals and work towards adopting a vegan way of living. In the words of Francione: "If you are not vegan, go vegan. It's easy; it's better for your health and for the planet; and, most importantly, it's the morally right thing to do."

Adam Kochanowicz is the National Vegan Examiner for Examiner.com. For more information on veganism and animal rights, visit Francione's Web Site at www.abolitionistapproach.com