The vast majority of birds are born, raised and killed in industrial systems, living their lives in cages or densely-packed hangars. Why does this “nation of animal lovers” allow such cruelty?
Part of the answer is that we can usually ignore the suffering of most animals. In 1830, Frances Thompson, a prominent woman donor to the RSPCA, complained that one could hardly leave the house without immediately coming face-to-face with animal cruelty.
Today, animal suffering is so often invisible, and silent.
Brutal
The animals have been crammed into nameless compounds, tucked away in the countryside and hidden by nondescript facades.
And we go past them in sealed cars and trains, unable to see, hear, or smell the suffering. The RSPCA will need to innovate to make the experiences of animals more present to us.
It’s somewhat unclear how to do this. But one opportunity has emerged from the present crisis facing the RSPCA.
In 2015, the RSPCA started issuing ‘RSPCA Assured’ certification to some animal products it deemed to pass certain welfare standards.
Yet in the last year we have seen multiple exposés which have uncovered the brutal cruelty unfolding on some assured farms.
Industrial
Campaigners are calling for the scheme to end. Chris Packham, until recently RSPCA president, has gone as far as to resign from the charity. The RSPCA stressed the scheme’s benefits, and launched an external review.
Should the RSPCA scrap its Assured scheme? It’s a complex question – there’s no denying that.
But to start with the bad: the scheme has the effect of reinforcing the common assumption that companies that industrially process and kill animals for food are acting defensibly, or not seriously wrongly, so long as they give animals a bit more space to move around.
This assumption doesn’t survive contact with reality, with the suffering caused by any significant market-driven operation, and with the entitlements animals have as beings who can experience the world through their own eyes.
And in adding a warm glow to some products, the RSPCA risks inadvertently soothing consumers’ doubts about the entire range of industrial meat products, even the worst ones.
Welfare
This is because the message that “we assure you there’s no issue lurking behind this pretty cheap packet of ham” can be taken as permission to relax about what goes on more generally to get meat on shelves.
So, the RSPCA seems to be inadvertently contributing to harm and to the rights violations of industrial production.
But I concede that abandoning the scheme risks even worse standards on some farms. Chris Sherwood, the chief executive of RSPCA says that “RSPCA Assured means the difference between a hen spending her life in a cage, or not…” and that we should not “abandon farmed animals now”. This should give us pause.
But the risk cuts both ways. Keeping the scheme also risks more animals being born into awful conditions. The scheme saps some of society’s momentum towards plant-focussed diets. So, retaining the scheme could also mean that animals are spending their lives in cages versus not.
And the initial risk isn’t as big as it may seem. Retailers could still advertise “higher” welfare products.
Volunteers
It might be better for consumers to have a single logo to look out for. But this point is partly blunted by the fact that RSPCA Assured standards, even if better than average, are so far from adequate.
For example, the Assured scheme actively approves the killing of pigs by gassing them with carbon dioxide, which can lead to violent anxiety and escape attempts.
And the RSPCA could largely mitigate the risks of ending the scheme. It could lobby the new government to force companies to include information on packs about how that product was made.
Or it could publicise the worst offenders in the mega-farm world and sanction businesses which continue to buy from them.
They could tell supermarkets and restaurant chains: ‘from this date, our volunteers will stand outside an ever-growing number of your outlets publicising your choices until our demands are met’.
Values
Replacing the scheme with other tactics seems best, then, and that’s before we consider a huge opportunity this unlocks.
The RSPCA is uniquely positioned to run a national campaign on the eve of the scheme’s end which says something like the following:
‘We were until now the UK’s biggest welfare certifier of meat, fish, dairy and eggs. We have decided that we cannot in good conscience tell you that our country is treating farmed animals with respect.
‘The rise of mega-farms and dubious new technologies are leading to new lows of suffering. So, we want to help unlock a new opportunity for everyone: to eat each year more and more plants turned into the most incredible meals from around the world. We will stand by your side until everyone can live what they value’.
Fear
The RSPCA has been cautious: too cautious. In the nineteenth century, it wouldn’t let women – who represented 70 per cent of all subscribers by 1900 – speak at meetings when other charities would.
In the twentieth century, it capitulated to vested interests over hunting and shooting, defending the destruction of animals for fun.
In the twenty-first, it shouldn’t condone industrial animal farming. It should stand – boldly yet very much strategically – against the needless conversion of animals into industrial commodities.
Ending the assured scheme will bring opposition. And no one can guarantee the PR campaign of the sort I described immediate success. But ditching the scheme will change perceptions, benefitting animals now and in future.
We are social creatures. We respond to social expectations. And when these expectations are altered, change can come quickly.
The RSPCA has influence, prestige and a track-record of moderation. It can leverage these assets to lead from the front. Or it can retreat into caution at a time of crisis for the animals it was royally designated to protect.
This Author
William Gildea is a researcher in moral and political philosophy at the Centre for Research in Ethics in Montreal, and at McGill’s Department of Philosophy.
No Comments
Leave a comment Cancel