Animal welfare and marketing “If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit non-humans?”- Peter Singer “The racist gives greater weight to the interests of members of his own race over the interests of another race. Similarly, the speciesist allows the interest of his own species override the greater interests of members of other species” (Singer, 2002). “What is it that should trace the insuperable line? ... The question is not, can they reason? nor can they talk? but, can they suffer?”- Jeremy Bentham Food Animals used for food production may experience physical and psychological suffering as a result of: Forced diets – e.g. antibiotic and growth hormones Confinement – e.g. crammed, filthy spaces Disease – e.g. infections, arthritis Inadequate transportation – e.g. stressful and terrifying journeys to slaughterhouse. Killing –e.g. inefficient, painful. Chickens, cows, sheep, pigs, duck and geese are the most widely farmed animals for purposes of food production. This typically include the production of meat, eggs, milk and diary products, as well as many other animal-based ingredients added in our food as well as the food for our pets. The conditions experienced by these animals can be appalling, resulting in large amounts of physical and psychological suffering. For example, females are repeatedly forcibly impregnated. Babies are torn away from their mothers, mutilated, kept in filthy and severely crowded conditions and fed a cocktail of drugs and chemicals sometimes causing their bodies to become oversized, resulting in numerous health problems. Then, often when they’re only a few months old, they endure a stressful and terrifying trip to the slaughterhouse, where many are killed while still conscious. Let’s just consider the appalling conditions frequently endured by perhaps the two most extensively farmed animals for purposes of food consumption. Chickens: Thousands of chickens are crammed in large windowless sheds alongside thousands other birds. Often there isn’t enough space for the chickens to spread their wings. Sometimes, they are fed to have such a large upper body that they can barely support their own weight - reaching a “slaughter weight” at only 41 days old. Cows: Cows used for beef can be kept on intensive factory farms and may spend their entire lives indoors, never grazing in the open air or having space to move around. They are “fattened up” on a highly unnatural cereal-based diet which causes them almost-constant digestive pain and can lead to metabolic diseases. During the ride to the abattoir, cows frequently collapse from exhaustion. Once unloaded, the animals are shot in the head with an electric bolt gun in order to stun them. But poorly trained, overworked employees often fail to do this properly, so many terrified cows go to their deaths kicking and screaming, still conscious as they’re skinned and dismembered. Animal testing (Cosmetic & Medical) Testing for cosmetics. Although the EU banned animal-tested cosmetics in 2013, companies continue to sell these products in large emerging markets such as China or India. Many medical experiments carried out on animals have no bearing on serious disease. For example: Thousands of mice poisoned to death in tests for Botox. Rats force-fed alcohol to develop a “hangover cure”. Animals forced to smoke, or mice dosed with weight-loss pills. Animal testing is a business activity of great animal suffering. Animals are legally be poisoned; deprived of food, water or sleep; subjected to skin and eye irritants, subjected to psychological distress; deliberately infected with diseases; subjected to brain damage; paralysed; surgically mutilated; irradiated; burned; gassed; electrocuted; and killed. Cosmetics: Since March 2013, the European Union (EU) banned animal tested cosmetics, even if the testing has been done outside the EU. Although companies can’t sell animal-tested cosmetics in Europe, they can continue to test cosmetics on animals outside Europe and sell them in other markets. Therefore, companies can still profit from cruelty to animals – just not in Europe. This is particularly important because many large emerging markets, such as China are demanding that cosmetics be tested on animals. Medical experimentation: Every year, millions of animals in the UK endure painful, frightening procedures at the hands of experimenters. However, many medical experiments carried out on animals have no bearing on serious disease at all: i.e. thousands of mice poisoned to death in tests for Botox, rats force-fed alcohol in order to try and develop a “hangover cure”, animals forced to smoke by tobacco companies and mice dosed with weight-loss pills. Entertainment Millions of animals around the world are imprisoned for life and forced to perform in unnatural ways that often result in injuries or even death for entertainment purposes. Some examples include the popularity of zoos and marine parks, bullfighting, circuses, or horse racing, to name a few. Clothing Every year, more than 1 billion animals are slaughtered in the global leather industry. Animals such as foxes, minks and chinchillas spend their entire lives in fur farms, confined to tiny, filthy wire cages. Before animal skins reach store shelves, many of these animals live a life of pain, boredom and fear, and many are skinned alive. Pet-trade industries This industry encourages impulse purchase of animals, which are treated like fashion accessories to be acquired and discarded at whim. In the UK alone, thousands of companion animals are poorly treated, abandoned or left in animal shelters, as their owners regret their impulsive acquisitions. The “pet” trade treats animals like money-making commodities to be mass-produced and peddled for profit. Animals are routinely denied socialisation, exercise and even basic veterinary care in this cruel, greedy industry. Worst of all, the pet trade encourages the public to view animals as impulse purchases, no different from fashion accessories that are acquired on a whim and discarded when the novelty wears off, rather than thinking, feeling beings who deserve love and respect. Instead of supporting this unethical industry, people in search of a new animal companion can easily find their feline or canine soulmate at one the many shelters that are full of adorable, adoptable animals in desperate need of good homes. Speciesism • Speciesism is a form of prejudice or bias that considers the lives and interests of non-human animals as less worthy simply because they belong to another species. • Humans show speciesism when they give less weight to the interests of nonhuman animals than they give to the similar interests of human beings. One answer to these questions can be found in the concept of speciesism. The term was introduced by psychologist Richard Rayner and popularized by philosopher Peter Singer in the 1970s. Speciesism is defined by Singer (1999) as a prejudice or bias in favor of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species. Therefore, 'Speciesism' involves the belief that being human is a good enough reason for human animals to have greater moral rights than nonhuman animals. There are different types of speciesism; extreme speciesism and hidden speciesism. Speciesism implies that less moral value is placed on the fact that non-human animals have lives, feelings and emotions that matter to them. One clear example of such speciesism is when nonhuman animals are perceived and treated as resources or “things”, with no other purpose than satisfying human desires. They are regarded as the property of humans, and the interests of their owners (e.g. making a profit) take precedence over theirs. Almost no value is placed on the fact that they have lives, feelings and emotions that matter to them. Is Speciesism another kind of discrimination? • Speciesism is an “-ism”, which is often compared to other forms of discrimination such as racism or sexism. • Sexism and racism justify the idea of individuals having limited or no rights on the basis of their membership to a given group (e.g. women or non-whites). • Speciesism justifies the idea of individuals having limited or no rights on the basis of their membership to different species. Speciesism and bigotry; Speciesism is often condemned as the same sort of group bias, just as racism or sexism, applied to non-human animals. The logic used to make this comparison is the following: Both sexism and racism are ideologies that justify that certain individuals having less rights than others on the basis of their membership to a given group which is deemed inferior (e.g. women or black). In the case of speciesism, it is justified that certain individuals would have less rights than others based on their membership to a given species which is deemed inferior (e.g. sheep, pigs). Animal Minds Intelligence – e.g. elephants great memory and basic arithmetic skills, crows show causal reasoning, etc. Language - e.g a chimpanzee was raised with a command of 350 words of sign language (similar to a 6 year old deaf child). Humor - Apes in captivity have been observed to laugh at situations removed from themselves such as seeing a clumsy fellow ape embarrass itself. Emotions – Mammals can display complex sets of emotions (anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness and surprise; contempt, jealousy and sympathy) Self-awareness – The mirror test (where one individual recognizes itself in a mirror). Human children do not pass this test until the age of 18 months. Great apes, some gibbons, elephants, magpies, and some whales have been found to pass the mirror test. The reason we try not to harm other humans is because they can feel and suffer pain (not because they are intelligent, self-aware or can talk). Does the same argument apply to animals? So, we have seen that the lines that Speciesism draws between humans and non-human animals are blurry and difficult to justify. If we were to apply the criteria intelligence or self-awareness, for example, many humans could perform below certain animals. Does it mean that it is okay to inflict suffering in them? The answer is no. We need to apply a new criterion here which will be easier to defend. Utilitarianism and equal consideration of interests When considering different courses of action in a given situation, the moral choice is the one whose outcomes would create “the greatest happiness of the greatest number” The principle of equal consideration of interest states that: “one should both include all affected interests when calculating the rightness of an action and weigh those interests equally”. Nevertheless, the consequences of the same action can be both positive and negative for different people, whose interests are different. For example, invading a country to take its natural resources may have positive consequences for the invaders, but negative consequences to those whose homes are invaded).So how can we know if an action is morally correct? Whose interests ought to be considered when weighting up the pros and cos of one’s actions? Animal Ethics Peter Singer is an Australian ethical philosopher whose work is key in the development of animal ethics. Peter Singer’s animal ethics takes utilitarianism one step further by extending the principle of equal consideration of interests to all sentient beings. The principle of equality requires the suffering of one being be considered equally with the like suffering of any other being (regardless of their age, race, gender, or, indeed, species). Animal ethics takes utilitarianism one step further by extending the principle of equal consideration of interests to all sentient beings. The vital characteristic that gives a being the right to equal consideration is the capacity for suffering. We cannot distinguish between the suffering of animals and humans by appeals to “the intrinsic dignity of human beings.” The principle of equality requires that a being’s suffering be considered equally with the like suffering of any other being. “The capacity for suffering and enjoying things is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in a meaningful way.” (Singer, 2010; 404). Not all life forms have a capacity for suffering (mussels,etc) , but most animals do. The basic principle of equality does not require identical treatment; it requires equal consideration. Equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights. E.g. it would be absurd to talk about a dog’s right to vote or a man’s right to abortion. What human and non-human animals have in common is an interest in avoiding suffering! Similarly, because a pig has no interest that would be served by education, whereas a child does, equal consideration of interests will lead to very different treatments for the pig and the child. What a child and a pig have in common is an interest in avoiding suffering. Thus, Singer argues that to the extent that animals are capable of suffering, their interests must be given equal consideration than human interests when we make decisions. Animals, like humans, deserve moral consideration. This does not mean that animal ethics oppose the use of animals whatever the circumstances. Not everyone has to go vegan! However, when dealings with non-human animals, it is crucial to consider the extent to which we affect their well-being –and whether it is ethically justified. A key implications of animal ethics is to debunk speciesism and understand that animals, like humans, deserve moral consideration. This does not mean that animal ethics oppose the use of animals. This does not mean that animal ethics oppose the use of animals whatever the circumstances. What matters in our dealings with animals is the extent to which we affect their well-being. In deciding what to do, we must therefore consider welfare consequences for animals as well as potential benefits for humans. All these actions only come from the realisation that animals are sentient beings, capable of experiencing pain and pleasure, and therefore their interests must be considered by marketers. The bare basics The Five Freedoms were first proposed in Britain in the 1960's. The Farm Animal Welfare Council, established by the British government in the late 1970's to advise it on legislative and other changes for farm animals, subsequently affirmed them. The Five Freedoms are: Freedom from Hunger and Thirst - by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigour. Freedom from Discomfort - by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area. Freedom from Pain, Injury or Disease - by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment. Freedom to Express Normal Behaviour - by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal's own kind. Freedom from Fear and Distress - by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering. The Five Freedoms are basic ideals of animal welfare and should be applied by anyone in charge of the animals or handling them. However, in real life, the 5 Freedoms are seldom applied. For example, think about the realities of factory farming, or animals farmed for their fur. Identify win-win marketing strategies Can you create consumer demand for animal welfare? Businesses can profit by providing solutions to consumers or other businesses concerned about animal welfare. 94% of EU citizens believe it is important to protect the welfare of farmed animals. 59% of EU citizens are prepared to pay more for products sourced from animal welfarefriendly production systems. However, 35% of EU citizens are still not willing to pay more. (Data from Eurobarometer 2016) One of the most remarkable examples of win-win marketing in the context of animal welfare is Lush, which taps into the market of cruelty free cosmetics and body care. Other brands have benefited from selling cruelty free products, such as Ecover or The Body Shop. (Best- and worst-case forecast of UK retail value sales of meat-free foods, 2013-23) These positive attitudes among consumers would translate, of course into business opportunities. If we focus on the food market, for example, we can see that there is a positive trend in the sales of meat-free products. In 2018, when this report was produced, the value of the market was estimated at £740 million, but this is projected to increase to 1, 069 billion by 2023. UK cosmetics industry, Mintel 2018 Working with pressure groups; Businesses can also form partnerships with pressure groups, for example PETA, to make improvements in relation to animal welfare. The pioneering Business Friends scheme is being launched by PETA Europe to benefit the PETA Research and Education Foundation (PREF), which promotes compassion toward animals among children and young adults through innovative free materials for schools. Choice-Editing Choice-editing means banning products that involve animal suffering and pain to for spurious or trivial purposes. Does the product meet animal welfare standards? Is the product fulfilling an important human need? Is the amount of animal suffering involved morally justified in relation to the satisfaction the product brings to customers? Are non-animal options available? Some retailers such as Marks & Spencer have decided to take off their shelves products that don’t mean their animal welfare standards.
