October
2006
Does
Nibbling at the Edges Conflict With Taking a Big Bite?
By Karen Davis
|
With intentions designed to encompass the mainstream
public and win greater sympathy for the plight of animals, many animal
advocacy groups
are distancing themselves from the “radical” agendas of
vegetarian and vegan advocacy and militant direct action. Similar to
the mid-19th century debate over slavery—in which anti-slavery
forces argued over the use of militant action versus patient education
and moral persuasion—an argument rages among animal advocates.
Mainstream organizations publicly denounce militant action in an attempt to advance
animal liberation. Others argue that activities associated with the notorious
Animal Liberation Front are among the many tactics needed to bring people’s
attention to the plight of nonhuman animals by people willing to risk government
surveillance, imprisonment and even death.
Promoting a vegetarian diet would seem to be consistent with the anti-violence
stance of those who argue that ALF activities violate the core ethic of promoting
compassion and respect. However, the mainstream animal advocacy community does
not encourage a nonviolent diet to the degree that it could. For example, while
the National Association for Animal Protection serves only vegan food at its
annual Summit meetings, it does not require member organizations to serve only
vegan food at their own functions, yet to join the association, a group must
pledge to refrain from violence. Furthermore, the mainstream animal advocacy
community does not show detestation of animal slaughter to anywhere near the
same degree that it does of violence against humans and inanimate property damage.
The 1990s seemed to be the beginning of a vigorous, full-stride-ahead vegetarian
campaign by the animal advocacy movement, yet a retreat appears to be underway.
Some vegan advocacy groups are even supporting so-called humanely produced animal
products as an alternative to factory-farmed products. However, it is one thing
to get people to urge companies to reduce the enormous suffering they inflict
on farmed animals and retailers to sell less cruelly produced products; it’s
quite another to encourage consumers to purchase “animal-friendly” slaughterhouse
products. This is a betrayal not only of animals, but of language and the public
trust.
Reasons given for shying away from vigorous vegan advocacy are that the media
is less interested in vegetarian campaigns than in campaigns against, say, McDonald’s.
And while the number of vegetarians is growing, that growth is slow compared
to population growth overall. If this is so, could it be partly the fault of
animal advocacy efforts thus far? In weighing arguments, remember that the animal
advocacy movement has not vigorously promoted vegetarianism as the way to eliminate
farmed animal suffering.
If the public is told it can eat humanely raised and slaughtered animals, what
incentive do people have to explore the range of delicious and nutritious vegan
products on the market? Should animal advocates make it easier and more comfortable
for people to consume meat, milk and eggs? Or was political activist Harriet
Schleifer right when she wrote two decades ago: “The difficulty with this
approach is that it tends to involve its proponents in deceit”? The public
comes to feel that the use of animals for food is in some way acceptable—even
the animal welfare people justify it. This only helps in making it more difficult
to eliminate the practice in the future.
Karen Davis, Ph.D.?is the President and founder of United Poultry Concerns, a
nonprofit organization that promotes the compassionate and respectful treatment
of chickens and other domestic fowl. For information visit www.upc-online.org.
| |
|
|
© STEALTH TECHNOLOGIES INC. |
|
