Globally, the number of farm animals reared for food exceeds 70 billion (1). The welfare of each of these animals has to be taken into consideration, however the concept of animal welfare is very complex. This essay aims to observe the similarities and differences of how we assess human well-being and animal welfare and to determine any changes that should be made to the current animal welfare assessment systems. I will focus mainly on farm animals as they account for the vast majority of domesticated animals in the world.
Human Well-Being
Before examining animal welfare, it is essential to explore the definition of our own well-being. There is no universal definition for human well-being but normally, when we speak of good well-being, we refer to the absence of unpleasant sensations such as pain, hunger and thirst, and a negative mental state. Furthermore, good well-being should also include the presence of good physical health and positive emotions. Our well-being is influenced by many factors, for example security, health, good social relations, and freedom of choice and action (2). Additional potential influences include education, employment, housing, recreational activities, health care access, governing institutions, purchasing power and more (3). The problem is that categorising and weighting different factors of well-being varies greatly from one person to the next. Some may see physical health as being a priority for satisfaction in life, while others may see a person’s state of mind as more important to attain a good quality of life.
Human well-being has been studied in a range of scientific fields. Studies have shown links between well-being, and income and consumption of material possessions (4). As many of us know, purchasing objects does not lead to long-term happiness and at best, is just a quick fix. As Socrates said, happiness is not found in luxury and extravagance; true happiness can be found by letting go of our desires and being content with nature (5). Similarly, Buddhism teaches that happiness and well-being are found within through practice of mindfulness and meditation, well-being is not characterised by being physically fit (6).
A positive mental state is certainly a significant element of human well-being; having good health yet feeling severely depressed would mean that a person’s quality of life is fairly low. Whereas, a person who is sick or injured but still has a positive outlook on life may consider their well-being to be reasonable. Well-being seems to put emphasis on the mental state of humans, possibly more so than physical health.
Distinguishing Humans from Animals
Historically, humans have seen themselves as superior to animals. We have attempted to identify what qualities set humans apart from the rest of the animal kingdom and to justify their use for food, clothing, manual labour, entertainment and scientific studies. Religions such as Christianity and Islam teach that animals exist for the benefit of humans and that we dominate all living beings (7)(8). Although, most religions do state that pain and suffering of animals should be avoided (7). The common view is that extremes of poor welfare are to be prevented. Additional defences for the use of animals have been their inferior intelligence, inability to speak and incapability to reason. This is certainly an unfair approach: following this logic would deem it acceptable to subject children and the mentally impaired to the same pain and misery we inflict upon non-human animals.
Animals are often regarded as uniform; that they all have the same preferences. This is certainly untrue: each species sees the world differently, they have each evolved to their surroundings and have even formed unique senses that no human will ever experience (9). For example, we will never experience a bee’s ability to see ultraviolet wavelengths or a dog’s sense of smell or a bat’s use of echolocation.
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and scientific advances have proven we are not so distant from animals when looking at their anatomy and DNA. Just a few hundred years ago we would not have considered ourselves as animals or a species. If we can see that we are similar anatomically, then surely we can assume that animals also have similar abilities to feel physically and affectively, just as we assume that other human beings do. Jeremy Bentham famously wrote in 1789, “The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but "Can they suffer?”” (10). It is evident that the gap between humans and non-human animals is very small and the differences are irrelevant in the context of well-being or welfare. Therefore, an animal’s quality of life is as important as that of a human’s and we should attempt to measure both with equal consideration.
Animal Welfare
The concept of animal welfare and its development has been evolving ever since the domestication of animals around 10,000 years ago and has seen a sudden impetus in the last 50 years, owing to the publication of Ruth Harrison’s exposure of farming in “Animal Machines”. In some cultures and religions animals have been, and still are, viewed as sacred, such as cats in ancient Egypt and cows in Hinduism. In Western culture, most people probably regard this sort of worship of certain animals as excessive and irrational. However, when we consider our obsession with dogs there are many similarities to religious or cultural zoolatry (11). Surely, it is illogical to adore one species and ensure good welfare for that species, yet subject others to mistreatment to satisfy our desires? Peter Singer refers to this anthropocentric view as “speciesism” (12). Culture is certainly a prominent factor in our preference of particular species.
Fraser (13) states that significant changes to animal welfare can be traced back to the industrial revolution where traditional, hand-made methods of producing goods were replaced by factories. Villagers moved to cities to work in factories where they were exploited and were forced to live in poor conditions. This way of life saw people’s well-being deteriorate. Industrialists believed science and technology would lead to a better quality of life but those against industrialisation, agrarians, wanted a simple life, allowing freedom and to live in harmony with nature. Concerning animal welfare, agrarians believed we should provide a more natural environment for animals and allow them to express themselves as they would in the wild. However, productivity was of priority to industrialists by improving housing systems and controlling nature for high efficiency. Presently, industrial farming accounts for two-thirds of all farmed animals in the world (14). The agrarian view has clearly been disregarded over preference for high productivity, therefore, compromising animal welfare.
Factory farming can be detrimental to the mental health of animals due to confinement in small spaces and isolation, yet farmers often defend confined housing systems because they can prevent physical health problems and don’t require as much attention as free range systems. It is obvious that the psychological welfare of animals is still not seen as the main concern, whereas in humans we know mental health is vital for good well-being. There have been some advances in this area: battery cages and veal crates are now banned in the EU but these housing systems are still commonly used in the rest of the world (1). Fraser suggests three basic sets of concerns regarding animal welfare: health, affective state and natural living (13). The three concerns can correlate, for example in the case of a calf suckling from its mother, the calf’s physical health is improved as it gains nutrients from the milk, its affective state is satisfied by bonding with its mother and the act of suckling is a natural behaviour. It is true that all three concerns must be considered when assessing welfare but a more detailed system is needed.
As an approach to assess animal welfare, the Farm Animal Welfare Council published their list of “Five Freedoms” (15). The Five Freedoms are often referred to when forming legislation, policies for food accreditation certifications such as the RSPCA’s Freedom Food scheme and as a tool to judge welfare in veterinary practice. The Five Freedoms have provided many improvements to animal welfare and the simple structure is accessible to everyone, not just scientists and veterinarians. However, this system has been criticised for its focus on freedoms “from”, rather than freedoms “to” (16). The Five Freedoms sounds very optimistic, implying it is possible to provide freedom from any form of suffering which is not the case, especially in factory farming. It does not suggest what can be provided to encourage positive experiences for animals except “to express normal behaviour”. As an alternative, the Welfare Quality Assessment protocol provides a more comprehensive evaluation of animal welfare using a points system in a twelve category evaluation. It takes into account both the presence of positive opportunities for animals and specific criteria for different species (17).
Summary
The terms “well-being” and “welfare” are interchangeable when applied to humans but there is still great prejudice when discussing non-human animals. The attitude of human exceptionalism is furthering our disconnection from species other than our own. The current welfare assessment systems continue to be of a low standard and alternatives must be sought for both the improvement of animal welfare and eventually for the use of animals. Ultimately, the suffering caused to sentient beings merely because they are not human is intolerable and this practice must be replaced by sustainable, healthy and humane food sources. The most reasonable solutions would be in-vitro meat or a shift to a vegan diet (18). These options would not only relieve farmed animals of their suffering but also address environmental and human health concerns.
References
1. CIWF. n.d. Factory farming | Compassion in World Farming. [online] Available at: https://www.ciwf.org.uk/factory-farming/ [Accessed 26 Oct. 2017].
2. Jax, K. and Heink, U. 2017. Human well-being | Openness Project. [online] Openness Project. Available at: http://www.openness-project.eu/library/reference-book/sp-human-well-being [Accessed 25 Oct. 2017].
3. Plummer, M. and Schneidler, M. n.d.. Section 3. The Nature of Human Well-being | Encyclopedia of Puget Sound. [online] Puget Sound Institute. Available at: https://www.eopugetsound.org/science-review/section-3-nature-human-well-being [Accessed 25 Oct. 2017].
4. Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J.-P. (2009): Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. Paris.
5. Klosko, G. 1987. Socrates on Goods and Happiness. History of Philosophy Quarterly, [online] 4(3), pp.251-264. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27743814?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents [Accessed 25 Oct. 2017].
6. Gregoire, C. 2017. This Geographically Isolated Country May Have Found The Key To Happiness. [online] HuffPost UK. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/buddhism-happiness_n_4719588 [Accessed 25 Oct. 2017].
7. Szűcs, E., Geers, R., Jezierski, T., Sossidou, E. and Broom, D. 2012. Animal Welfare in Different Human Cultures, Traditions and Religious Faiths. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 25(11), pp.1499-1506.
8. Rahman, S. 2017. Religion and Animal Welfare—An Islamic Perspective. Animals, [online] 7(2), p.11. Available at: http://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/7/2/11/htm [Accessed 26 Oct. 2017].
9. Dawkins, R. 2009. The Greatest Show On Earth. London: Transworld Publishers, pp.43-54.
10. Bentham, J. 1789. An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. London: Printed for T. Payne.
11. Fraser, D. 2012. Dr. David Fraser on Animal Welfare and Ethics. [image] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJJGbn_1LBE [Accessed 24 Oct. 2017].
12. Singer, P. (1990). Animal liberation. New York: New York Review of Books.
13. Fraser, D. 2008. Understanding animal welfare. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 50(Suppl 1), p.S1.
14. CIWF. n.d. Compassion's Impact for Farm Animal Welfare | Compassion in World Farming. [online] Available at: https://www.ciwf.org.uk/our-impact/ [Accessed 26 Oct. 2017].
15. FAWC. 2009. Farm Animal Welfare Council - 5 Freedoms. [online] Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121010012427/http://www.fawc.org.uk/freedoms.htm [Accessed 26 Oct. 2017].
16. McCulloch, S. 2012. A Critique of FAWC’s Five Freedoms as a Framework for the Analysis of Animal Welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26(5), pp.959-975.
17. Welfare Quality Network. n.d. Welfare Quality Assessment Protocols. [online] Available at: http://www.welfarequalitynetwork.net/network/45848/7/0/40 [Accessed 25 Oct. 2017].
18. Pluhar, E. 2009. Meat and Morality: Alternatives to Factory Farming. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 23(5), pp.455-468.
Comments
Post a Comment