IS THERE A BASIS IN JEWISH ETHICS FOR MANDATORY VEGANISM OR A
HUMANE FARM ANIMAL DIET?1
By Phineas E. Leahey2
I.
Introduction
In the last decade, Jewish scholars have increasingly promoted strict vegetarianism, and
even varying degrees of veganism, as an ethical choice based on inhumane conditions in modern
agriculture and the perceived negative effects of animal-based diets on human health and the
environment.3 Some religious authorities have also interpreted Jewish law to support
“vegetarianism” as a permissible, if not ideal, diet for similar reasons.4 Although halacha, or
Jewish law, has not responded in a comprehensive fashion to the strict vegetarian or vegan
lifestyle,5 the issue has been discussed, at least since the 1990s.6
At least three main perspectives on Jewish veganism have emerged from these
discussions: (selective) Anti-Veganism (requiring animal-based diets at least on certain
occasions), Permissive Veganism, and Mandatory Veganism. The most controversial approach
would be mandatory veganism. The possibility of a certified humane animal diet has not
received adequate attention, in part due to the limited availability or expense of such products.
Following a critique of the first two perspectives, this article proposes that mandatory veganism
and/or a humane animal-based diet is a justifiable view. Such a view would be based on
concerns about supporting violations of the specific and well-established prohibition against
ts’sar ba’alei chayim, or cruelty to animals.
1
Rabbinic authorities are encouraged to decide whether Jewish law should endorse or require veganism or humane
farm animal diets.
2
B.A., Philosophy, 1997, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York (CUNY); M.A., Philosophy, 1999,
J.D., 2002, Columbia University. Special thanks to Paul Roe, and Dr. Richard H. Schwartz, vegetarian activist and
author of Judaism and Vegetarianism and over 100 articles at www.Jewishveg.com, for their valuable comments.
3
See, e.g., Dr. Richard H. Schwartz, Judaism and Vegetarianism (MA, Micah, 2nd ed., 2001) (collecting and
analyzing sources). Despite a certain ambiguity in the title of Schwartz’s book and in various other discussions of
the issue, the term “vegetarianism” has often been used to mean veganism.
4
See, e.g., Schwartz, supra.
5
There have, however, been isolated rulings on pate fois gras and veal. See footnotes 45 and 54 and accompanying
text.
While this general discussion is limited to Jewish veganism, the prohibition against benefiting from tsa’ar ba’alei
chayim extends to other issues, such as the purchase of fur or products experimenting on animals except for
compelling reasons and by the least painful means. See generally Rabbi David Sears, The Vision of Eden: Animal
Welfare and Vegetarianism in Jewish Law and Mysticism (Orot: 2003) (collecting classic and contemporary sources
from all viewpoints).
6
II.
Alternative Perspectives
A.
Anti-Veganism
One perspective is that contemporary Judaism affirmatively requires an animal-based diet,
at least on festivals.7 For instance, Rabbi Moshe Tendler, an orthodox Jewish expert in
bioethics, expressed his view that “[t]he Torah will not allow someone to be a strict vegetarian,”
because of the commandment to “rejoice” on festivals.8 According to other recent authorities,
however, no person whose sensibilities are offended by meat has an obligation to consume it.9
There are also numerous Chief Rabbis and other respected religious figures who maintain a
vegetarian diet.10 The authorities to the contrary had no opportunity to consider the conditions of
modern agriculture, which seems to be the primary basis for advocating a vegan diet. As a result,
one can argue, rather forcefully, that following the equally authoritative sources that meat is not
required on festival days seems more desirable from an ethical perspective if its consumption
condones inhumane conditions for animals or other negative results.
There are also two conceptually distinct, though interrelated, arguments that consumption
of animals is beneficial to ourselves and to animals. These arguments generally claim that: (i)
because consumption of meat contributes to physical vigor, all things being equal, the observant
non-vegetarian can more effectively perform commandments than his vegetarian counterpart;
and (ii) consumption of meat which, as with all food, requires a blessing, elevates the slaughtered
animal to a state of holiness, or even liberates a human soul to be reincarnated.11 The idea that
we should elevate animals through carnivorous diets has been referred to vaguely as a
“Kabbalistic” concept or “Chassidic view.”12
7
Despite a statement in the Talmud that any obligation to consume meat was extinguished after the destruction of
the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, Pesachim 109a, statements from some subsequent rabbinic figures have suggested
that one should have meat on the holidays of Pesach (Passover), Shavuot (the Harvest Festival) and Sukkoth (the
Festival of Booths). See J. David Bleich, “Vegetarianism and Judaism,” Tradition, 23(1), Summer 1987, 87-89
(“whether or not there exists an obligation to partake of . . . meat on the festivals is a matter of some dispute,”
among medieval and early modern authorities). There seems to be a general consensus that the obligation to
“delight” in the Sabbath does not mandate consumption of meat. Ibid. (referring to “sources cited by R. Shalom
Mordecai Schwadron, Da’at Torah, Yorah Dea’ah 1:10”).
Debra Nussbaum Cohen, “Jewish Vegetarians Hungry for New Type of Kashrut,” Jewish Bulletin of Northern
California (published at www.jewishsf.com/-bk981009/usvege.htm). Although most opponents of a vegan lifestyle
would not oppose consumption of kosher humane certified meat, in my experience, their view has been that
consumption of uncertified humane meat would be preferable to vegetarian alternatives on the festival days and that
there is no obligation to limit one’s options or purchase a more expensive product in order to promote animal
welfare.
8
Rabbi Alfred Cohen, “Vegetarianism from a Jewish Perspective,” Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society
(Fall 1981), 41
9
10
For example, Rabbi Shlomo Goren, late Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rabbi David Rosen, former Chief
Rabbi of Ireland, and Shear Yashuv Cohen, Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi of Haifa. Schwartz, footnote 3 at 104.
11
Schwartz footnote 3 at 124. There are also Kabbalistic and Chassidic arguments for vegetarianism. Ibid. For a
comprehensive collection of conflicting sources on mysticism and vegetarianism, see Sears, footnote 6.
2
In response to the first argument, there seems to be no evidence that consumption of meat
improves the performance of commandments.13 The opposite may be equally, if not more,
probable: long term meat consumption may contribute to disease and premature death,14 which
reduces the affected person’s ability and amount of time to perform commandments. The second
argument is premised on beliefs in animal transcendence and human reincarnation into animals
which seem, at a minimum, controversial within the Jewish tradition. Regardless, the kavvanah
(intent) of consumers, and ritual slaughterers who handle hundreds or thousands of animals a
day, probably does not include imbuing animals with holiness or liberating their souls from their
imprisonment. Such intent, on the Kabbalistic view, is required to have the desired effect:
raising “sparks of holiness.” Arguably, therefore neither the humans or animals involved would
receive any such benefit.15 The main objection to the “Kabbalistic” arguments supporting
animal-based diets, however, is that if the processing of animals and their byproducts derive
from inhumane conditions, their consumption requires benefiting from violations of the Torah
prohibition against tsa’ar ba’alei chayim. As discussed below, the doctrine that one should not
benefit from violations of Torah law, known as mitzvah habah b’aveira, has been applied to pate
fois gras and veal, which are considered by some to be “the product of illegitimate means” based
on the inhumane conditions of their production.
B.
Permissive Veganism
The second perspective holds that, despite the idealization of vegetarianism in the Torah,
either vegetarian or animal-based diets are permissible. According to this perspective, the
Garden of Eden was strictly vegetarian,16 and the Messianic era will reinstate a similar
vegetarian paradise,17 but God explicitly permitted Noah to consume animals.18 This permissive
12
Ibid.
13
As mentioned above, footnote 10 and accompanying text, prominent religious figures, including chief Rabbis,
have been or are strict vegetarian. In addition, secular vegetarians, such as Pythagoras, Leonardo de Vinci and Ralph
Waldo Emerson were energetic and humane members of society. For a voluminous though “unofficial” list of
famous vegetarians in film, music, sports, politics, science, religion, and other aspects of life, see
www.ivu.org/people.
Preventive Medicine 24: 646-55 (1995); Roger R. Williams, “Diet, Genes, Early Heart Attacks, & High Blood
Pressure,” in Nutrition in the 90’s, Current Controversies and Analysis, ed. Frank N. Kotsonis & Maureen A.
Mackley (New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.: 1994), 25-44.
14
15
Cf. Schwartz, footnote 3 at 125.
In Genesis 1:29, God states to Adam and Eve, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon
the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food.” Rashi confirms that this
verse required a strict vegetarian diet.
16
17
Hertz, Pentateuch and Haftorahs, 562. For a poetic description of Messianic vegetarianism for humans and
animals, see Isaiah 11: 6-9:
And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb . . .
And a little child shall lead them . . . .
And the lion shall eat straw like the ox . . . .
They shall not hurt or destroy in My holy mountain.
3
approach, however, at least as applied to modern agriculture, is premised on certain debatable
assumptions.
The first assumption is that God’s permission to Noah extends to the present. According
to some, however, permission may have been limited to Noah and his generation because all
plant life had been annihilated by the Flood.19 The second assumption is that post-Diluvian
generations have not advanced sufficiently to exclude animal-based diets. Judaism has evolved
to prohibit a variety of accepted Biblical practices, including forced betrothal of female prisoners
of war, polygamy, and divorce without mutual consent.20 Therefore, if appropriate, animal-based
diets, one can argue, may be added to the list. The third assumption is that modern agricultural
practices comply with the letter of the law, including tsa’ar ba’alei chayim. As discussed below,
this seems doubtful in many cases. The fourth assumption is that Jewish ethics requires no more
than compliance with religious codes of law and the responsa of rabbinic authorities. There is,
however, an obligation of “lifnim meshurat hadin,” to exceed the letter of the law, which may
support veganism or human farm animal diets. As Rabbi Yochanan lamented: “Jerusalem was
destroyed because the residents limited their decisions to the letter of the law of the Torah . . .
.”21
Mandatory veganism has rarely, if ever, been advanced for a number of reasons,
including the sensitive nature of the issue: vegans are reluctant to criticize the dietary practices of
their friends and families. There is also the potential for others to ascribe pretensions of moral
superiority to the proponent of mandatory veganism. However influential on the rhetorical tone
and content of moral criticism, such concerns are not relevant to a philosophical analysis of the
question.
Another perceived impediment to mandatory veganism is that Judaism avoids chumras,
or stringencies, that the community cannot endure.22 Arguably, the maxim against chumras
should not apply to contemporary veganism, however, because: (1) modern agricultural practices
impose abysmal conditions on animals that the Torah neither contemplates nor permits; and (2)
due to accessible, healthy, and palatable vegetarian alternatives, there is no undue hardship.
In Genesis 9:3 God states to Noah, “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you.” This limited permission
to consume animals was expressly conditional on abstention from their blood. Genesis 9:4. The laws of Kashrut
(kosher) further limited an animal-based diet to particular animals, Leviticus 11:2-3, slaughtered in a specified
manner, Deuteronomy 12:21.
18
19
This was the controversial view of Rabbi Isaak Hebenstreit, Graves of Lust (Hebrew) (Rzeszow, Poland, 1929), 6.
Kibroth-Hattaavah (“Graves of Lust”) is the burial place for the Israelites who dissatisfied with the vegetarian
manna craved meat. Because of their nostalgia for meat in Egypt where they had been slaves, God sent a plague
against them while “the meat was still between their teeth, not yet chewed . . . .” Numbers 11:33-34.
As with animal-based diets, permission to betroth a female captive against her will was a concession to the “evil
inclination.” See Kiddushin 21b. The ban on polygamy and divorce of a woman without her consent were decrees of
the Tenth Century Rabbi Rabeinu Gershom designed to prevent desecration of God’s name and correct an injustice
in Jewish law. See Rabbi Joseph Teluskin, Jewish Literacy (William Morrow & Co., New York: 1991), 178-79.
20
21
Baba Metzia 30b.
22
Baba Batra 60b.
4
Admittedly, the Talmudic maxim would be applicable to the extent that Draconian reform cannot
be implemented in a short time frame. Such practical considerations, however, do not preclude a
discussion of whether one should consider adjusting his or her diets in the direction of
vegetarianism of humane farm animal diets consistent with the realities of individualized
circumstances. Accepting the theoretical possibility of mandatory veganism from the perspective
of Jewish ethics, what, then, are the arguments in its favor?
C.
Mandatory Veganism Based on Tsa’ar Ba’alei Chayim
Any proposed formulation of mandatory veganism would involve the following
questions: (i) what are the relevant principles of Jewish ethics?; (ii) what is the empirical
evidence regarding the impact of industrial agriculture on farm animals, which are supported, in
a tangible manner, through non-vegetarian dietary practices?; (iii) to the extent that the impact
connected to the dietary practices is not consistent with Jewish principles, what are reasonable
measures for reducing, minimizing and eliminating such dietary practices?
(i)
Jewish Principles of Animal Welfare
The general prohibition on tsa’ar ba’alei chayim requires avoidance of unnecessary pain
to animals. Since tsa’ar ba’alei chayim has never been construed to provide “animal rights” as
we generally comprehend the term in modern democratic societies, it has implicitly been
interpreted as a principle of “animal welfare.” In accordance with the connotation of “animal
welfare” attached to the prohibition against tsa’ar ba’alei chayim, rabbis and scholars have
queried whether modern agricultural practices which, in certain cases, cause severe and
prolonged pain to animals, are necessary, when we have access to sufficient or superior nutrition
in vegetarian alternatives.
Modern agriculture does not conform to the letter and spirit of Biblical laws protecting
farm animals against extreme discomfort and promoting compassion in their human owners.
These protections include: (1) animals must be allowed to rest on the Sabbath,23 which includes
the mobility to roam and graze freely;24 (2) owners must generally feed their animals before
themselves;25 (3) a farmer cannot plow a donkey and an ox together in part because the weaker
animal, the donkey, will suffer pain;26 (4) nor can he muzzle a threshing ox to prevent its
consumption of corn or grain;27 and (5) if one notices an ox of his enemy “lying under its
burden,” he must help “unload it,” even if the ox belongs to his “enemy.”28 Commentators, such
23
Exodus 20:20.
24
See Rashi’s commentary on Exodus 20: 8-10 and Deuteronomy 5:12-15.
25
Berachot 40a.
26
Deuteronomy 22:10.
27
Deuteronomy 25:4.
28
Exodus 23:5.
5
as Maimonides, are more explicit. Referring to the Biblical prohibition against removing eggs
from a nest in the presence of the mother bird,29 he states: “There is no difference in this case
between the pain of people and the pain of other living beings, since the love and the tenderness
of the mother for her young ones is not produced by reasoning but by feeling, and this faculty
exists not only in people but in most living creatures.”30
While codes of Jewish law and responsa have not, to date, comprehensively addressed
consumption of factory-farm animals and their byproducts, the ancient Biblical laws support an
examination of modern agricultural practices. In addition, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch opined
that we have an affirmative duty under Jewish law to minimize pain to animals: “God’s teaching
. . . obliges you not only to refrain from inflicting unnecessary pain on any animal, but to help
and, when you can, to lessen the pain whenever you see an animal suffering, even through no
fault of yours.”31 Rabbi Hirsh’s language “whenever you see an animal suffering” could
conceivably be expanded, consistent with its spirit, to impose a duty to seek practical alternatives
to animal products that are associated with widespread animals suffering, even if one does not
see the particular animal it consumes suffering.
More recent authorities have criticized modern agriculture as inconsistent with the Torah.
“[I]t seems doubtful,” according to Rabbi Aryeh Carmell, a modern Torah scholar in Jerusalem,
“whether the Torah would sanction ‘factory farming,’ which treats animals as machines, with
apparent insensitivity to their natural needs and instincts.”32 The former Chief Rabbi of Ireland
David Rosen stated, more dramatically, that “the current treatment of animals in the livestock
trade definitely renders the consumption of meat as halachically unacceptable as the product of
illegitimate means.”33 Former Chief Rabbi Rosen’s statement would presumably extend to other
29
Deuteronomy 22:6-7.
30
Guide for the Perplexed, 3:48.
31
Horeb, Chapter 60, Section 416.
32
Masterplan: Its Programs, Meanings, Goals (Feldman: 1991), 69 (cited by www.serv-online.org/Judaism-andJudeo-Christian.htm ) (collecting Jewish and Christian quotes supporting compassion to animals).
“Vegetarianism: An Orthodox Jewish Perspective,” in Rabbis and Vegetarianism: An Evolving Tradition, edited
by Roberta Kalechofsky (Micah Publications: Marblehead, Massachusetts, 1995), 53.
33
Former Chief Rabbi Rosen’s statement, although not explicit, includes kosher beef, which is his main area
of concern. The conditions of kosher and non-kosher animals tend to be the same, except for the moments of
scheitah (ritual slaughter). In an attempt to impose minimal humane standards for slaughterhouses themselves,
federal regulations require the use of “stunning” before slaughtering. See 7 U.S.C. § 1902(a). In theory stunning
renders the animal unconscious. Insufficient amperage, however, can cause paralysis without loss of sensibility. See
U.S.D.A., Survey of Stunning & Handling, January 1, 1997. At the station in the slaughterhouse where “cattle were
supposed to be dead . . . too often they weren’t. ‘They blink. They make noises,’ . . . ‘The head moves, the eyes are
wide and looking around.’ Some would survive as far as the tail cutter, the belly ripper and the hide puller.’” See
“Modern Meat: A Brutal Harvest,” The Washington Post, April 10, 2001.
The law provides exemptions for halal (Muslim) or Shechitah (kosher) slaughter. Under the prevailing
view, the latter requires the animal to be conscious and mobile before the throat is slit with an extremely sharp knife
designed to cause an almost instantaneous death. How Do I Know It’s Kosher, An OU Kosher Primer (published at
6
animal products, for example, eggs, which are produced under equally, if not more deplorable
conditions for the animals involved. Placing aside the issue of whether the relevant authorities
have issued a formal psak din or rabbinic ruling, from the perspective of Jewish ethics the former
Chief Rabbi’s statement provides support for discussions about mandatory vegetarianism or
humane farm animal alternatives, at least to the extent consistent with the rule against undue
stringencies.
(ii)
Conditions of Modern Animal Agriculture
As advocates of vegetarianism have documented, modern agricultural practices result
from competition to produce inexpensive animal products for human consumption. Although
some claims may be exaggerated, each year, over ten billion animals are raised on “factory
farms” in the United States alone, where most are confined to limited areas and subject to
various forms of mutilation, including, castration, dehorning, debeaking and tail-docking, in
many cases without the use of anesthesia.34 Generally, there is a converse relationship between
www.ou.org/kosher/primer.html). Critics have argued that current ritual slaughter in many factories perverts the
mandate against tsa’ar ba’alei chayim that shechitah was originally designed to advance. These cows, exhausted
from their transport in overcrowded trailers, are still shackled around a rear leg, hoisted, and then suspended, fully
conscious, upside down on the conveyer belt before their throats are slit in accordance with Jewish law. See
Moment, “Is Kosher Slaughtering Inhumane?”, February 1991. See also John Robbins, Diet for a New America
(Tiburon, Calif.: H J Kramer, 1998), 140-42 (although, in pre-industrial times, shechitah was “the most humane
form of slaughter,” it currently “adds incalculably to the agony” of animals due to the hoisting and suspension
required under the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906). Even where the cows’ joints are not ruptured or legs broken,
this process is painful and, assuming there are no complications, could last several minutes. See Peter Singer,
Animal Liberation (New York, Random House, 2nd ed., 1990), 154. Because shechitah requires the slaughterer to
kill with a single stroke struggling animals must have a clamp inserted in their nostrils to reduce mobility. Ibid. The
incentive for care is probably reduced by the fact that when animals are defectively slaughtered, their meat can still
be placed on the non-kosher market. Ibid. at 155.
Grandlin Livestock Systems supports comparatively humane alternatives to hoisting: either ASPCA pens or
conveyor system restrainers to immobilize and lock the animal into position for ritual slaughter. See
“Recommended Ritual Slaughter Practices To Improve Animal Welfare And Employee Safety”
(www.grandin.com/ritual/ritual.slaughter.tips.html). There has in fact been a recent trend toward increased use of
ASPCA pens for ritual slaughter of larger animals. See Schwartz, footnote 3 at 110. These alternatives, however,
seem more concerned with worker safety, noting that pens “resulted in a 500 percent reduction in accidents” to
workers. The website also notes that a pen for cows and calves, which contains a “forehead bracket,”“chin lift” and
other restraints, has “a maximum capacity of 100 cattle per hour and it works best at 75 heads per hour.” The main
problem, however, is that conveyor belts and pens do not address the deplorable conditions preceding slaughter.
34
Singer, footnote 33 at 95; Schwartz, footnote 3 at 134; United States Department of Agriculture (U.S.D.A.),
Animal Welfare Issues Compendium, September, 1997 (cited at www.veganoutreach.org).
In an apparent attempt to accommodate efficiency goals, federal and state laws, to the extent enforced,
provide certain minimal protections for farm animals. The federal Animal Welfare Act, however, exempts “farm
animals” from the humane protections applicable to other animals, 7 U.S.C. § 2132(g), and state anticruelty laws
generally exclude farm animals from the definition of “animal” or provide exemptions for standard agricultural
practices, Cass R. Sustein, “A Tribute to Kenneth L. Karst: Standing for Animals,” 47 UCLA L. Rev. 1333, 1334
(2000). See also, Amy Mosel, “What About Wilbur? Proposing a Federal Statute To Provide Minimum Humane
Living Conditions For Farm Animals Raised for Food Production,” 27 U. Dayton L. Rev. 133, 144 (Fall 2002)
(“protection for factory farm animals remains non-existent at both the federal and state level.”).
7
animal welfare and agricultural efficiency.35 As critics have also noted in this regard, more
chickens per cage, more cattle per stall, more pigs per pen, and so on, increases overall
productivity.36 Such conditions deprive animals of their basic instinctual needs for movement
and socialization.
As the Former Chief Rabbi’s statement about “the consumption of meat” suggests, lactoovo vegetarians―those who consume animal by-products, such as dairy and eggs, while
refraining from beef and poultry―tend to distinguish between the former and the latter. Because
the principle is to avoid undue pain to the animal, the conditions under which the animal product
is processed for human consumption, whether it be the flesh of the animal itself or an animal byproduct, seem more relevant than any other distinction between the two. Defining vegetarianism
to exclude animal by-products, however, would require an evidentiary showing that such
products are either themselves produced under inhumane conditions or lead to inhumane
conditions in the production of other products.
Consider dairy, for example. The U.S.D.A. approval of Bovine Growth Hormone has
been reported to allow milk production to reach thirty tons per year for a single cow,37 which is
advantageous from an efficiency vantage point. These high levels of production, however, have
been reported to contribute to udder ligament damage, lameness, mastitis, and metabolic
disorders in cows.38 In addition, having been artificially impregnated to produce milk, dairy
cows are prevented from nursing their young.39 Although one can argue that these conditions are
morally acceptable in comparison the benefit of increased production—at least if the industry
were required to adopt cost-effective measures reducing the animals’ discomfort—there are two
respects in which dairy production is connected to more inhumane conditions for farm animals.
First, once their milk production declines, many dairy cows may “go to beef.”40 The
movement and extreme weather on overcrowded trailers during transport can cause these animals
Barbara O’Brien, Comment, “Animal Welfare Reform and the Magic Bullet: The Use and Abuse of
Subtherapeutic Doses of Antibiotics in Livestock,” 67 U. Colo. L. Rev. 407, 418 (1996) (“the inhumane conditions
on factory farms result from the incongruity between concerns for animals and economic incentives”); Humane
Society of the United States (HSUS), Farm Animals and Sustainable Agriculture, at www.hsus.org/programs/farm
(animal welfare is incompatible with modern agriculture’s emphasis on efficient use of space and equipment).
35
36
Bernard E. Rollin, Farm Animal Welfare: Societal, Bioethical and Research Issues (1995); National Hog Farmer
(November 15, 1993) (reducing the space in pig pens from 8 to 6 square feet per pig “pays” for overall productivity)
(cited at www.veganoutreach.org); Nicole Fox, Note and Comment, “The Inadequate Protection of Animals
Against Cruel Animal Husbandry Practices Under United States Law,” 17 Whitier L. Rev. 145 (1995) (efficiency
and the profit motive have resulted in a system of “intensive confinement,” that “maximizes the use of land and
space in order to maximize corporate profits.”). The same applies to aquafarms. See footnote 61 and accompanying
text.
37
Associated Press, September 20, 1996.
38
Scientific Farm Animal Production (6th ed. 1998); Peter Cheek Contemporary Issues in Animal Agriculture, 1999
(cited at www.veganoutreach.org).
39
Scientific Farm Animal Production, supra.
8
to lose 3% or more of their body weight from urination and defecation.41 The transport
occasionally results in “downers” (injured or ill animals that cannot walk, despite shocks with
electric prods or beatings). These unfortunate animals are dragged by their chains to slaughter or
“deadpiles.”42 Second, while one-third of the male calves, the non-milk producers, are
slaughtered almost immediately43 minimizing the length of their own suffering, another third are
raised for veal, which often involves their confinement for 18-20 weeks to individual stalls
where they are restraint by 2-3 foot tethers and fed a liquid diet laced with drugs and devoid of
iron. These conditions―virtual immobilization and anemia―improve the color (paleness) and
texture (tenderness) of the final product for the consumer.44 Fortunately, certain prominent
rabbinic figures have ruled that veal produced under such conditions should not be consumed
because the interest against supporting this cruelty outweighs any alleged need for veal. 45 Other
rabbis, however, allow veal, which continues to be served in many kosher restaurants.
There is a similar connection in modern agriculture between poultry and eggs. In 1888,
the average hen reportedly laid 100 eggs, but by 2000, this number more than doubled to 257.46
As noted by critics, the hen is generally confined, during her increasingly “productive” life, to a
12 by 18 inch iron-floor cage with 4 other hens,47 resulting in leg abnormalities, self-mutilation,
entanglement, bruises, abrasions, feather loss and other painful ailments.48
Because close quarters precipitate pecking between hens, factory farm workers often
remove their beaks with sharp knives, a procedure that causes severe pain for extended periods.49
Occasionally, debeaked hens have been reported to starve to death.50 The survivors continue
their existence in close confinement, in dimly lit, poorly ventilated facilities, where manure
fumes and other unsanitary conditions sometimes contribute to respiratory ailments, eye
infections, external ulcers and heart disease.51 When her production declines, a hen is either
40
“Urban Sprawl Benefits Dairies in California,” New York Times, October 22, 1999.
41
U.S.D.A., Animal Welfare Compendium, footnote 34.
Video footage from “The Down Side of Livestock Marketing” (Farm Sanctuary 1991) (available at
www.veganoutreach.org).
42
43
U.S.D.A., Animal Welfare Compendium, footnote 34.
O’Brien, footnote 35 at 420-21; Fox, footnote 36 at 146; Carole Lynn Nowiski, The Animal Welfare Act: All
Bark and No Bite, 23 Seton Hall Legis. J. 443, 443-44 (1999).
44
45
The ruling of Rav Moshe Feinstein, Igrot Moshe, Even Ha-Ezer, Volume 4, Teshuvah 92, has been interpreted by
some rabbis to discourage, if not prohibit, the consumption of veal.
46
Scientific Farm Animal Production, footnote 38.
47
Singer, footnote 33 at 118.
48
Ibid. at 99-119; The Fund for Animals, www.fund.org/library/document-viewer.asp?ID=68&table=documents.
49
Singer, footnote 33 at 101.
50
Rollin, footnote 36.
9
slaughtered or “force-molted” i.e., deprived of food and water for days at a time to shock her
system into another laying cycle.52
Each year, hundreds of millions of chicks―the male non-egg producers, as well as spent
hens unsuitable for slaughter―are thrown alive into wood chippers or plastic bags, or are
discarded by other inhumane means.53 Chicks spared an immediate death are raised in extremely
close quarters for slaughter. Since “chickens are cheap” and “cages are expensive,” as concerned
animal welfare proponents have noted, producers lack a financial incentive to improve the
inhumane conditions of their storage and transport.54
Because their neurological systems are relatively unsophisticated, declaring consumption
of fish to be an ethical problem is more difficult to justify. Fish experience pain, at least in the
physical sense, according to some scientists,55 while others claim that concerns about the welfare
of fish are unwarranted, in that fish lack “the neurological capacity to experience the unpleasant
51
Diseases of Poultry, 1997. Farmers use antibiotics to prevent and stem infections caused by unsanitary
conditions. O’Brien, footnote 35 at 423 (fifteen to seventeen million pounds of antibiotics are used
subtherapeutically on animals in the United States alone).
52
Peter Cheeke, Contemporary Issues in Animal Agriculture, 1999 (cited at www.veganoutreach.org).
See e.g., Elizabeth Fitzsimons, “Live Hens Were Put Into Wood Chippers.” San Diego Union Tribune, April 11,
2003 (published at www.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/200304119999_1mi11chip.html); Rollin, footnote
36. Egg laying facilities consider these chicks, which were not bred for slaughter, a liability. They are more useful
as meal feed to other animals than as “broilers,” which are bred to grow rapidly.
53
54
Rollin, footnote 36; see also The Fund for Animals, footnote 48 (Broilers confined in warehouses of over 20,000
chickens, each of which shares one meter of space with sixteen other chickens); Singer, footnote 33 at 103 (near
dark and unsanitary conditions of chickens causes nervous conditions and suffocation by “piling.”)
Other birds endure unique dystopic conditions. In a recurrent, prolonged and agonizing process, geese and
ducks are forcefed massive amounts of grain and fat through pnemanic pumps to produce pate fois gras, a
grotesquely enlarged liver that results from the forced-feeding. To produce pate, farmers “‘shove metal pipes down
the throats of geese and ducks thrice daily and pump seven pounds of corn mush into their stomachs . . . .’” (Jewish
Exponent, August 2, 2001 (quoting the Jerusalem Post)). As with veal, however, certain prominent rabbis have
ruled that the conditions under which pate is produced violates basic animal welfare. Rav Zvi Pesach Frank, Rav
Eliezer Waldman, Shas spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef and Haifa Chief Rabbi She’ar Yashuv Cohen, and
Rabbi David Rosen, former Chief Rabbi of Ireland, have all stated that consumption of pate is inconsistent with the
principle of not benefiting from tsa’ar ba’alei chayim. Chief Rabbi Cohen has added that no decent Jew would
attempt to halachically justify pate. (Jerusalem Post, July 31, 2001, available at www.chai-online.org). Rabbi David
Rosen, further states: “It should be obvious that pate de foie gras is produced in a manner that is in complete
contravention of the Torah’s prohibition of causing tsa’ar ba’alei chayim . . . ” On August 11, 2003, the Israeli
Supreme Court declared illegal the forcefeeding of ducks and geese for the production of pate. See, e.g., Francis J
Liu, Geese and Ducks Rejoice! Israeli Supreme Court Rules That The Production of Fois Grois Causes
Unacceptable Cruelty, www.arlan.org.nz/articles/Froie% 20Gras_Francis.htm.
55
See Alex Kirby, Fish Do Feel Pain, Scientists Say, April 30, 2003 (published at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/
science/ nature/2983045.stm); New Scientist, April 25, 1992; Guyton & Hall's Textbook of Medical Physiology
(1996) (cited at www.veganoutreach.org); Singer, footnote 5 at 172 (citing to Report of the Panel Enquiry into
Shooting and Angling published by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). Due to commercial
fishing practices, each year millions of fish are “impaled, thrown, crushed, or mutilated while alive, and they are
often left to die slowly and painfully of suffocation.” See www.nofishing.net.
10
psychological aspect of pain.”56 We cannot predict with certainty which position objective
piscine neuroscience will conclusively vindicate, but one must admit that our historical tendency
has been to rationalize the use of animals for human convenience based on their alleged lack of
sentience.57
In cases where there is doubt as to whether an action will violate a biblical mandate, the
Talmud urges restraint. This maxim is known as “Safek d’orayta l‘chumra” (a doubt regarding a
Torah law requires stringent behavior to avoid a potential violation).58 The Talmud states that
“avoiding making animals suffer is a Torah obligation.”59 Since there is a safek as to whether
fish experience pain in a sense that should concern humans, one can argue, not necessarily from
a halachic, but an ethical viewpoint, that exceeding the letter of the law and erring on the side of
caution may be prudent, all other factors considered.
A more specific reference in the Talmud allows fish to be merely gathered or “taken up”
in lieu of ritual slaughter, which weakens such an argument.60 This practice, however, arguably
occurred under more humane conditions than exist at present. For example, fish may now be
crushed, gutted, mutilated alive, or subject to other horrific practices.61 Furthermore, aquafarms,
which produce salmon, trout, cod, halibut, tilapia, bass, and other fish use the same intensive
agricultural practices as factory-farms. In these artificial habitats, the fish are stocked at densities
as high as 27 fish to the size of a bathtub, which results in stress, high mortality rates from
disease and unintended suffocation.62 Fish may be starved before slaughter.63 The means of
slaughter include electrocution or delayed suffocation on ice to increase shelf life.64 Assuming
fish experience pain in any significant sense, excluding fish produced under such conditions is
more persuasive to the extent that adequate vegetarian alternatives render the pain caused to fish
56
Dr. James D. Ross, “Do fish Feel Pain?, December 21, 2003 (published by National Federation of Sea Anglers).
See http://www.nfsa.org.uk/news_views/fishfeelnopain.htm; see also, Rajeev Syal, Fish Lack The Brains To Feel
Pain, Says The Latest School of Thought, February, 10 2003 (published at http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003
/02/10/ 1044725683181.html?oneclick=true) (“An academic study comparing the nervous systems and responses of
fish and mammals has found that fishes' brains are not sufficiently developed to allow them to sense pain or fear.”).
57
For example, the famous seventeenth century rationalist philosopher Descartes, who believed animals were
automata, “dissected live animals, before anesthesia was available, and seemed ‘amused at their cries and yelps
since these were nothing but the hydraulic hisses and vibrations of machines.’” Schultz and Schultz, A History of
Modern Psychology (Fifth Ed. Harcourt Brace: 1992), 35.
58
See, e.g., Betza 3b. This is the common sense view that we should err on the side of caution.
59
Baba Metzia 32b.
60
Chullin 67b.
See e.g., Harold Hillman, Mb, BSc, PhD, “The slaughter of Animals for Food” (published at www.hedweb.com/
hillman/animpain.htm); see also footnote 72.
61
62
See, e.g., Andrew Purvis, The Observer, May 11, 2003 (available at http://observer.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,
4664026,00.html) .
63
64
Ibid.
Ibid.
11
by suffocation unnecessary. While the principle remains the same, the case is more difficult to
make against fish consumption without showing that fish experience pain, especially when a diet
excluding beef, poultry, eggs, and dairy drastically limits the available alternatives.
(iii)
Humane Alternatives
What about “humane” or “free-range” alternatives for dairy, eggs and other animal
products? According to one vegan organization, humane animal products tend to be unregulated
marketing schemes.65 Without regulation, the profit motive will impel producers to maintain the
same inhumane conditions of storage and transport. “Free-range,” for example, does not
necessarily prevent debeaking, force-molting, or other inhumane practices.
Despite such criticism, there are a limited number of products with a reputable humane
certification label. For example, Humane Farm Animal Care (HFAC), an independent non-profit
organization, conducts regular inspections and administers a stringent “Certified Humane Raised
& Handled” program.66 Widespread availability of HFAC-certified animal products would result
in a dramatic improvement of animal welfare. HFAC-farm meat would meet the minimum
requirements of tsa’ar ba’alei chayim.
Thus, a diet that does not support ts’sar ba’alei chayim would arguably limit purchase of
animal products to companies that voluntarily minimize pain to animals at the expense of
efficiency and lower prices. A more stringent approach would be to substitute consumption of
animal products with vegan alternatives, such as nutrient rich tofu, tempeh, seitan and other soy
products, rice, pasta, lentils, chickpeas, sesame seeds, flax seeds, almonds, peanuts and other
nuts, potatoes, grains, and fruits and vegetables. These alternatives contain sufficient protein,
iron, zinc and calcium. Fortified vegan products, such as soymilk and cereals, eliminate the need
for consumption of animals or their byproducts for vitamin B12 and vitamin D.67 For an endless
variety of delicious and healthy alternatives to animal-based diets, there are vegan cook books
available at libraries, bookstores, and on the internet.68 There are also an increasing number of
vegan restaurants open for business. Virtually all non-vegetarian restaurants have vegan
alternatives on the menu. For supplemental support to an already healthy vegan diet, there are at
supermarkets, health food stores and pharmacies, kosher parve/egg-free vitamins, meal
replacement or snack bars, and protein powders, which can be added to juice, water or soymilk.
Farm Sanctuary “But what about humane meat, milk and eggs?” (published at www.farmsanctuary.org/vegan/
humane.htm).
65
66
See www.certifiedhumane.com for the prescribed humane conditions and the currently limited number of
participating products.
67
For more detailed information on the adequacy of a vegan diet, see, e.g., Stefanie Iris Weiss, Everything You Need
to Know About Being A Vegan (New York, Rosen Pub. Group: 2000); Brenda Davis & Vesanto Melina, Becoming
Vegan: The Complete Guide to Adopting a Healthy Plant-Based Diet (Book Publishing: 2000).
68
See, e.g., Jeani-Rose Atchison, Everyday Vegan: 300 Recipes for Healthy Eating (North Atlantic Books: 2002).
12
In sum, weighing the inhumane conditions on factory farms against the need for their
products in light of available humane vegetarian or animal alternatives, the case for a certain
degree of mandatory Jewish veganism, or at least a human farm animal diet, is plausible.
III.
Vegetarianism and Other Jewish Mandates
Although we have focused on animal welfare, most Jewish vegetarian advocates consider
other factors to support vegetarianism. For example, Dr. Schwartz argues that animal-centered
diets “impinge” on the Jewish mandates of animal welfare, human health, the environment and
conservation, and efficient agricultural production which may have related ramifications, such as
armed conflict.69 He has recently concluded, therefore, that “committed Jews” have an obligation
to investigate the impact of animal-based diets on Jewish mandates, and he “hopes” that they will
voluntarily “choose” a diet consistent with “rachamim” (compassion).70 But, is there an
argument that, while strict vegetarianism or veganism may be an ethical choice based on other
considerations, might it be an ethical mandate in order to eliminate support of ts’sar ba’alei
chayim on modern farms?
A.
Health
Jewish law contains a general requirement to protect one’s health.71 Scientific studies
suggest that substantial benefits are associated with a vegetarian diet and a variety of chronic
conditions and diseases with consumption of animals and their byproducts.72 Therefore, it seems
logical to conclude that one is obligated to reduce his ingestion of these harmful foods to a
minimum level.73
Based on health considerations alone, however, the average person can supplement a
vegetarian diet with lean poultry, egg whites, low-fat dairy, and fish. Such a diet, while arguably
healthy, would incidentally reduce, by some margin, but not have a major impact on, prevention
of tsa’ar ba’alei chayim. Because there is no evidence that an otherwise vegetarian diet
supplemented by animal-products undermines health, it is difficult to rest mandatory veganism
on health considerations. At best, health factors mandate a reduction or minimization, but not
elimination, of an animal-based diet.
Dr. Schwartz recently “start[ed] thinking about the argument that committed Jews are not
only permitted, but are obligated to be vegetarians.”74 However, after a succinct list of “points”
69
See generally, Judaism and Vegetarianism, footnote 3.
70
See www.wujs.org.il/activist/features/articles/veg.shtml.
According to the prominent nineteenth century rabbi Sampson Raphael Hirsch “you may not . . . in any way
weaken your health or shorten your life.” Horeb, ch. 62, s 428.
71
72
Footnote 14 (citing health studies).
Rabbi Alfred Cohen, “Vegetarianism From a Jewish Perspective,” Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society
(Fall 1981), 61.
73
13
and “comparisons” illustrating that vegetarianism promotes animal welfare, human health, the
environment and resource conservation, and reduces starvation and the violent conflict the erupts
as a result of inadequate nutrition, he concluded that we should not state that committed Jews are
obligated to be vegetarians.75 He is reluctant to declare that Jewish ethics obligates
vegetarianism, in relevant part, because:
[T]here may be a problem in terms of the all-or-nothing nature of that assertion. Someone
might argue that, because of the Jewish mandate to take care of our health, we should
never have a piece of cake.76
One can concede―as does Dr. Schwartz―that the “all-or-nothing” dilemma precludes veganism
based on considerations of health, but this dilemma does not necessarily apply to veganism
based on preventing tsa’ar ba’alei chayim. The consumption under evaluation should be linked
to substantial harm in order to justify its prohibition. But, there is no evidence that an occasional
piece of cake undermines the average person’s health. Therefore, a complete ban of pastries at
any and all times would be an overreaction. The “all-or-nothing” dilemma is placed in
perspective when the choice is, for example, between having an occasional slice of veal, which is
derived from a calf slaughtered after a prolonged period of tortuous confinement, rather than a
slice of cake. While neither an occasional slice of cake, nor veal, will undermine human health,
the latter will cause unjustified pain to calves. In other words, there is verifiable causal link
between the occasional consumption of veal and tsa’ar ba’alei chayim, but not between the
occasional consumption of cake and health problems. Furthermore, genetics and a variety of
environmental factors influence when indulgence in “junk food” becomes a significant health
risk for a particular person. Therefore, an ethical or religious rule requiring more than good faith
is difficult to fashion, impractical to self-enforce and, absent an unqualified prohibition, will not
afford fair notice as to whether a particular action, e.g., having a slice of cake, constitutes a
violation. In contrast, these problems are generally non-existent for mandatory Jewish
vegetarianism based on tsa’ar ba’alei chayim. The rule would be more practical to fashion:
avoid products connected to unjustified abuse of animals.
B.
Environmental Concerns
Environmental principles of Judaism include human “stewardship” over the earth and bal
tashchit, i.e., the prohibition against waste of resources.77 These principles have been cited in
opposition to animal-based diets.78 According to this argument, animal-based diets support
industries that contribute substantially more harm to the environment than their vegetarian
replacements would. Therefore, the argument continues, vegetarianism preserves the
environment.
74
See Schwartz at footnote 70.
75
Ibid.
76
Ibid.
77
Kiddushin 32a.
78
See, e.g., Schwartz footnote 3 at 79-94.
14
One can accept vegetarianism as a means to reduce the negative effects of animalcentered diets on the environment. As with health concerns, however, it is a problematic basis for
mandatory vegetarianism. Sources on the environmental impact of the animal-products industry:
(1) tend to omit the environmental harm that would be caused by the increase in vegetarian farms
following en masse adoption of a vegan diet; (2) consider neither alternative management
schemes that would reduce harm to acceptable levels; (3) and presume connections between
environmental harm in the Third World and Western consumption of animal products, which are
attenuated or non-existent.79
Arguably, to fulfill the Jewish mandate to preserve the environment, consumers can limit
consumption to amounts consistent with reasonable protection of air, ecosystems and rain
forests. Bal tashchit does not preclude the prudent use of resources for convenience. Dr.
Schwartz’s related concern about mandatory vegetarianism is the potential objection that
“because of the Jewish mandate to preserve the environment, we should never use a car except in
cases of emergency or absolute necessity.”80 As with the hypothetical ban on pastries, this
would be an unendurable, overreaching, and unnecessary chumra. The Jewish mandate to
preserve the environment should not, and realistically, cannot, require a complete ban on
unnecessary activities that contribute to pollution, whereas not supporting tsa’ar ba’alei chayim,
in contrast, may indeed require a complete ban on practices that cause non-essential pain to
animals.
Further, abstention from products connected to violations of animal welfare is not an
unendurable chumra due to sufficient vegetarian alternatives. Torah authorities have not―nor
should they―declare non-emergency use of a vehicle a violation of the Jewish mandate to
protect the environment. Even opponents of strict vegetarianism, such as Rabbi Tendler,
however, have forbidden white veal.81 The objection rephrased, “because of the Jewish mandate
of tsa’ar ba’alei chayim, we should never consume non-humane certified animal products,
except in cases of emergency or absolute necessity,” is not that far-fetched from an ethical or
even a halachic perspective were rabbinic authorities inclined to issue appropriate rulings.
C.
World Hunger
Jewish ethics supports action to reduce world hunger. According to a Talmudic
expression, “Providing charity for poor and hungry people weighs as heavily as all the other
commandments.”82 About 70% of the grain produced in the United States and 40% in other parts
See, e.g., Steven Byrnes, PHd., RNCP, “The Myths of Vegetarianism,” Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients,
July 2000 (revised and republished at http://www.powerhealth.net/selected_articles.htm); “The Beef Controversy,”
The American Council on Science and Health, Special Reports, August 31, 1993.
79
80
Schwartz, footnote 70.
81
See Cohen, footnote 8.
82
Baba Batra 9a.
15
of the world feed livestock raised for slaughter.83 Supporters of vegetarianism claim, therefore,
that abstention from animal-based diets would dramatically increase the food supply and
therefore reduce world hunger. There are, however, several limitations to this argument.
The first is the doubtful assumption that, in a world of universal vegetarianism, the
massive amounts of grain currently harvested for livestock would continue to be produced for
human consumption. These grains would not be produced without market demand by farmers
seeking to sustain their billions of livestock, which would no longer be brought into existence
once vegetarianism replaced animal-based diets. Secondly, despite the inefficiency of animal
agriculture, the current food supply is more than adequate to nourish the world’s population.84
We currently produce enough grain alone to feed each person 3,500 calories per day.85 In
virtually all famished regions of the world, there is a surplus of food; ironically, many famished
nations are leading agricultural exporters.86 The problem, rather, is one of distribution, caused by
poverty, inadequate infrastructure, armed conflict and government corruption.87 Therefore,
increased grain and vegetable production will not necessarily reduce world hunger.
There are, in addition, alternatives to vegetarianism to increase the food supply. About
one-fifth of America’s annual food supply is wasted at a rate of 130 pounds of food per person
which arguably diverges from the mandate of bal taschit, or unjustified waste, to the extent these
resources can be salvaged.88 The value of this waste is estimated at $31 billion each year. Close
to 50 million people could be fed by those lost resources, more than twice the number of people
in the world who die of starvation each year.89 To the extent that additional food would help,
there are alternatives to vegetarianism to reduce, if not eliminate, world hunger. Logically,
chumras other than vegetarianism, for example, minimization of waste, would also have to be
enacted were world hunger the basis for mandatory vegetarianism. A specific, detailed, and
categorical chumra on elimination of waste, however, shares some of the practical and
theoretical problems associated with chumras to help promote the environment and human
health.
IV.
83
Conclusion
Schwartz, footnote 3 at 76.
84
For an extensive documented discussion, see Frances Moore Lappe, Joseph Collins & Peter Rosset, World
Hunger: Twelve Myths (Grove Press, N.Y.: 1998), 8-24.
85
Ibid at 8. This estimate does not even include other vegetarian foods such as fruits, vegetables, beans and nuts.
Ibid.
86
Ibid 9-12.
See, e.g., William K. Stevens, “Humanity Confronts Its Handiwork: An Altered Planet,” New York Times, May 5,
1992.
87
According to Rabbi Sampson Raphael Hirsch, we should “regard things as God's property and use them with a
sense of responsibility for wise human purposes. Destroy nothing! Waste nothing! Do not be avaricious! Be wisely
economical with all the means that God grants you, and transform them into as large a sum of fulfillment of duty as
possible.” Horeb, Vol. II, ch. 56, s. 402.
88
89
U.S. Department of Agriculture, “A Citizen's Guide to Food Recovery,” 1999.
16
The specific and well-established Torah prohibition against tsa’ar ba’alei chayim, or
violating animal welfare, coupled with the related rule of mitzvah habah b’aveira—that one
should not benefit from Torah violations— seems to provide an adequate theoretical and
practical basis for mandatory Jewish veganism or a humane-certified animal diet. While the
more general principles of promoting prudent resource management, protecting the environment,
and preserving human health may support vegetarian agriculture and consumption, there are
certain practical and theoretical problems with a mandatory veganism based on the Jewish
variant of these principles. Rabbinic authorities are encouraged to investigate kosher animal
products to determine whether their production violates ts’sar ba’alei chayim to such a degree
that benefiting from, and supporting them, would be considered mitzvah habah b’aveira, and, if
so, to issue proper restrictions consistent with the maxim against undue stringencies.
17