WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.800 As animal activists, we do not have  to fear presenting the bare facts. 00:00:04.800 --> 00:00:12.330 We don't have to try to sensationalize  or exaggerate: the truth is bad enough. 00:00:21.247 --> 00:00:26.720 Hope Bohanec (conference organizer): So happy to have Emily Moran Barwick. She is an animal-liberation activist, educator, 00:00:26.720 --> 00:00:31.520 writer, artist, and international speaker.  And after completing her Masters of Fine Arts, 00:00:31.520 --> 00:00:36.080 Emily founded Bite Size Vegan.  Emily, it's all you. Thank you. 00:00:36.080 --> 00:00:39.920 Thank you so much for having me. It is such  an honor to be a part of this conference. 00:00:39.920 --> 00:00:43.120 Today I wanted to talk about the importance of language in 00:00:43.120 --> 00:00:48.320 activism; specifically covering some of the potential pitfalls, distractions, diversions, 00:00:48.320 --> 00:00:52.240 and counterproductive “traps" that we can fall into as activists. 00:00:52.240 --> 00:00:58.720 The most dangerous of these are often wrapped in  the guise of making veganism more approachable. 00:00:58.720 --> 00:01:02.720 In our effort to increase the accessibility of veganism, 00:01:02.720 --> 00:01:10.000 we may inadvertently compromise our convictions  and soften our ethics—offering gradations of 00:01:10.000 --> 00:01:16.640 change, or incremental reductions in animal  product consumption, or "humane" alternatives. 00:01:16.640 --> 00:01:21.600 Now, this is often born from the belief that we must take either a firm—even 00:01:21.600 --> 00:01:28.720 militant and polarizing—or a soft, conciliatory approach to our outreach. 00:01:28.720 --> 00:01:33.600 But, this is a this false dichotomy. The real challenge is walking the line 00:01:33.600 --> 00:01:39.360 of staying firm in our convictions and uncompromising in our message while still 00:01:39.360 --> 00:01:45.120 helping people lower their guard enough to listen, hear, and make the connection. 00:01:45.120 --> 00:01:50.640 So, within the vegan movement, a major approach activists take is the social normalization of veganism. 00:01:50.640 --> 00:01:57.440 What I mean by this is making a vegan lifestyle accessible, affordable, 00:01:57.440 --> 00:02:04.320 easy—even mainstream. And this is a very logical  tactic, especially when considering that one of 00:02:04.320 --> 00:02:10.560 the strongest deterrents to going vegan is social  ostracism and rejection from friends and family. 00:02:10.560 --> 00:02:18.240 I am the last person to decry increasing the  accessibility of veganism—it is something about 00:02:18.240 --> 00:02:24.480 which I am intensely passionate, and is one of  the foundational aspects of Bite Size Vegan. 00:02:24.480 --> 00:02:29.680 However, in attempting to “bridge the gap”  and meet the general public where they’re at, 00:02:29.680 --> 00:02:38.320 there exists the risk of reducing the ethical  imperative of veganism to a socially acceptable 00:02:38.320 --> 00:02:43.840 lifestyle choice. This is why it’s so vital that we be mindful of our language 00:02:43.840 --> 00:02:50.960 choices as activist, lest we end up advocating  the very things we are fighting against. 00:02:51.600 --> 00:02:57.200 So, a very common approach activists take  to provide an "entry point" to veganism 00:02:57.200 --> 00:03:01.120 is encouraging people to reduce their intake of animal products, 00:03:01.120 --> 00:03:07.680 like "Meat-Free Mondays." Such an incremental  option is obviously more palatable to non-vegans; 00:03:07.680 --> 00:03:12.080 it allows them to make a minor change while still providing the emotional 00:03:12.080 --> 00:03:17.440 benefit of doing something good. But it's equally alluring for us activists. 00:03:17.440 --> 00:03:22.720 Perhaps we're afraid of coming across as extreme and want to provide a less 00:03:22.720 --> 00:03:29.120 intimidating suggestion. Perhaps we ourselves  are intimidated to ask for something "so big" 00:03:29.120 --> 00:03:35.680 as going fully vegan. Perhaps we believe that  any change is better than no change at all. 00:03:36.240 --> 00:03:41.120 And while it's understandable for  such fears and beliefs to arise, 00:03:41.120 --> 00:03:48.080 we must take a step back and recognize their  implications. Believing that going fully vegan 00:03:48.080 --> 00:03:56.160 is too much to ask simply reinforces that very  misconception. Offering gradations of change, 00:03:56.160 --> 00:04:02.080 in essence, endorses the idea that there are "acceptable" levels of cruelty. 00:04:02.640 --> 00:04:08.080 When I spoke in Dublin, I met Sandra Higgins,  the founder of Eden Farmed Animal Sanctuary 00:04:08.080 --> 00:04:13.440 in Ireland, who is also a psychologist. I remember her making the rather apt analogy, 00:04:13.440 --> 00:04:18.640 saying something along the lines of that if  she had a patient who was beating his wife or children, 00:04:18.640 --> 00:04:25.120 she would never advise him to try to reduce the frequency of his violence 00:04:25.120 --> 00:04:28.615 or stop beating his wife and children on Fridays. 00:04:28.960 --> 00:04:36.640 The message has to be that violence is  always unacceptable and has to be eradicated. 00:04:36.640 --> 00:04:43.040 When we take this approach of "reductionism,"  we're not only doing a disservice to the animals, 00:04:43.600 --> 00:04:50.960 but also to the non-vegans. We're deciding for  them that they can't handle the full truth. 00:04:50.960 --> 00:04:57.120 We're deciding for them that they can't  or won't make the decision to go vegan. 00:04:57.120 --> 00:05:03.280 This is similar to the way in which the American  Heart Association approached its official dietary 00:05:03.280 --> 00:05:09.200 recommendations: the DASH diet, which stands  for “Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension." 00:05:09.200 --> 00:05:15.280 While decades of research have demonstrated that  consuming animal products is "highly significantly associated" 00:05:15.280 --> 00:05:21.200 with elevated blood pressure, the DASH diet still includes dairy and meat. 00:05:21.200 --> 00:05:27.520 In his book "How Not to Die" Dr. Michael Greger explains why this is the case, stating: 00:05:27.520 --> 00:05:32.800 "“The reason that the DASH diet was modeled  explicitly after vegetarian diets but was not 00:05:32.800 --> 00:05:38.560 meat-free itself might surprise you. The primary design goal of the DASH diet was to explicitly 00:05:38.560 --> 00:05:43.920 create eating patterns “that would have the blood  pressure lowering benefits of a vegetarian diet 00:05:43.920 --> 00:05:49.600 yet contain enough animal products to  make them palatable to nonvegetarians.…” 00:05:49.600 --> 00:05:54.000 [The doctor who chaired the DASH diet  committee] had even shown that the more 00:05:54.000 --> 00:05:59.680 dairy vegetarians consumed, the higher their blood  pressure appeared to rise. But he figured there 00:05:59.680 --> 00:06:05.120 was no point in calling for a diet he believed  few would follow. This is a recurring theme 00:06:05.120 --> 00:06:10.480 in official dietary recommendations. Instead  of simply telling you what the science shows 00:06:10.480 --> 00:06:15.520 and then letting you make up your own  mind, experts patronize the population 00:06:15.520 --> 00:06:20.880 by advocating what they think is practical rather  than ideal. By making the decision for you, 00:06:20.880 --> 00:06:25.600 they undermine those willing to make  even greater changes for optimal health.” 00:06:25.600 --> 00:06:31.680 In the same way, when we preemptively offer  non-vegans gradations of change rather than 00:06:31.680 --> 00:06:37.680 the entirety of the truth, we are depriving them of the opportunity—and I believe, 00:06:37.680 --> 00:06:42.480 the right—to have all of the facts and make a decision for themselves. 00:06:42.480 --> 00:06:47.280 The same holds true for what I believe to be the most insidious pitfall for 00:06:47.280 --> 00:06:52.640 activists and non-vegans alike: humane  labels and animal welfare regulations. 00:06:52.640 --> 00:06:59.200 Humane language and concepts have easily gained  a stronghold by appealing to all sides 00:06:59.200 --> 00:07:06.560 —for the vegan afraid as coming across as militant,  they provide an approachable suggestion to offer; 00:07:06.560 --> 00:07:12.480 for activists fighting for animal liberation,  they give the possibility of better conditions, 00:07:12.480 --> 00:07:17.760 progress towards the ultimate goal;  and certainly for the non-vegan, who 00:07:17.760 --> 00:07:22.480 now has a way to keep doing what they want to do, but feel good about it. 00:07:22.480 --> 00:07:26.080 I've been told it can sound odd coming from an animal rights activist, 00:07:26.080 --> 00:07:32.240 but I find that humane labels and animal  welfare regulations are often detrimental 00:07:32.240 --> 00:07:39.920 to animals. In fact, the entire concept of  animal welfare is antithetical to animal rights. 00:07:39.920 --> 00:07:47.120 Welfare regulations are designed to spare  animals any “unnecessary” suffering—the unspoken 00:07:47.120 --> 00:07:52.960 implication being that some suffering is necessary when it benefits humans. 00:07:53.600 --> 00:07:58.080 Still, even if animal liberation is the ultimate goal, isn't there value in 00:07:58.080 --> 00:08:03.600 improving the conditions for those currently  in our systems of exploitation? 00:08:03.600 --> 00:08:10.160 While this thought process is understandable, we must again  take an honest look at what welfare regulations 00:08:10.160 --> 00:08:14.480 actually mean for the beings they are designed to protect. 00:08:14.480 --> 00:08:22.394 A striking example of the true impotence of welfare regulations is the battery cage ban within the European Union. 00:08:22.394 --> 00:08:25.280 So, in 1999, The Council of the European Union 00:08:25.280 --> 00:08:31.200 set a directive that banned all “barren battery cages” by 2012. And while media 00:08:31.200 --> 00:08:36.400 coverage at the time focused on the end of  battery cages in the EU, what the directive 00:08:36.400 --> 00:08:43.600 actually did was replace barren battery cages  with “enriched" battery cages—meaning "furnished." 00:08:43.600 --> 00:08:48.400 So yes, hens would now be provided  more space and given furnishings like 00:08:48.400 --> 00:08:53.440 perches and laying nests—certainly an  improvement over barren cages. However, 00:08:53.440 --> 00:08:59.600 while media reports extolled that hens  would now each be afforded 750cm², 00:08:59.600 --> 00:09:05.600 they neglected to clarify that—due to the  new furnishings—only 600cm² would be usable. 00:09:05.600 --> 00:09:11.280 Now I know it's a lot of numbers, and it's  hard to visualize what that means. So, 00:09:11.280 --> 00:09:15.760 in the end, that this revolutionary step forward for the rights of 00:09:15.760 --> 00:09:21.840 laying hens granted them less than a single playing card of additional space. 00:09:22.640 --> 00:09:27.680 Even more maddening: in 2012, over twelve years 00:09:27.680 --> 00:09:35.040 after the directive, thirteen Member States  had still failed to comply with the ban. 00:09:35.040 --> 00:09:44.165 But as the media celebrated the victory for animal welfare, the public ate even more eggs —reassured by their higher standards 00:09:44.400 --> 00:09:52.000 —and the individuals this entire charade was  supposed to be for remained just as exploited. 00:09:52.000 --> 00:09:58.480 The execution of the barren battery cage ban  is far from a single failing. In 2001, the EU 00:09:58.480 --> 00:10:04.720 outlawed gestation crates. If you're unfamiliar,  these are single-sow enclosures constructed of 00:10:04.720 --> 00:10:09.760 metal bars and hard flooring, in which mother  pigs are confined during their pregnancies. 00:10:09.760 --> 00:10:16.720 As always, the ban came with ample fine-print  exceptions, and over a decade for implementation. 00:10:16.720 --> 00:10:22.480 Twelve years later, nine member states  had still failed to comply with the ban. 00:10:22.480 --> 00:10:24.720 The most amazing thing about all of this is that 00:10:24.720 --> 00:10:31.040 several of the Member States that failed to  implement the battery cage and/or the gestation 00:10:31.040 --> 00:10:37.680 crate bans are rated amongst the best  countries in the world for animal welfare. 00:10:37.680 --> 00:10:42.560 So, as alluring as the idea of better conditions for animals may be, 00:10:42.560 --> 00:10:49.600 animal welfare legislation is based upon the  presumption that we have a right to use non-human 00:10:49.600 --> 00:10:55.280 animals for our own purposes. Rather than  condemn the breeding, enslavement, mutilation, 00:10:55.280 --> 00:11:02.800 and slaughter of sentient beings, welfare  legislation simply codifies precisely how 00:11:02.800 --> 00:11:06.571 we may breed, enslave, mutilate, and slaughter them. 00:11:06.800 --> 00:11:10.560 In 2007, the European Union historically declared 00:11:10.560 --> 00:11:17.280 non-human animals legally sentient—deserving  freedom from hunger, thirst, discomfort, pain, 00:11:17.280 --> 00:11:20.560 injury, disease, fear, distress and mental suffering. 00:11:20.560 --> 00:11:26.880 Having recognized their capacity to feel  the same emotions and sensations as we do, 00:11:26.880 --> 00:11:32.240 the EU proceeded to draft landmark  legislation for their humane treatment. 00:11:32.240 --> 00:11:37.440 The resulting Council Regulation was—and  is—viewed as a victory for animals. 00:11:37.440 --> 00:11:40.720 Now, for those of us in countries without regulations, 00:11:40.720 --> 00:11:46.480 it's natural to think that the systematic  abuse of farmed animals results—at least 00:11:46.480 --> 00:11:49.840 in large part—from the total lack of oversight. 00:11:49.840 --> 00:11:55.440 In the United States, for example, there are no  federal laws governing the treatment of animals in 00:11:55.440 --> 00:12:02.240 our food industry. We do have the Animal Welfare  Act of 1966, but, like so many welfare acts around 00:12:02.240 --> 00:12:09.120 the world, it excludes animals raised for food—as  do the majority of state anti-cruelty regulations. 00:12:09.120 --> 00:12:15.920 Many US activists and organizations stress the  need for regulations to end such atrocities as 00:12:15.920 --> 00:12:22.045 routine mutilations without anesthetic, the aceration (meaning the grinding up) 00:12:22.045 --> 00:12:25.040 of male chicks in the egg industry, and the blunt-force "euthanasia" of piglets 00:12:25.040 --> 00:12:30.640 —often pointing to the European Union as a shining example. 00:12:30.640 --> 00:12:35.120 However, within the EU legislation and supplemental documents, those 00:12:35.120 --> 00:12:44.000 very same atrocities are not decried, but  codified. So, instead of male baby chicks being 00:12:44.000 --> 00:12:49.600 ground up alive because there are no regulations  to stop it, they are ground up alive because 00:12:49.600 --> 00:12:55.920 regulations declare it as the preferred method  for male chick disposal. There are even detailed 00:12:55.920 --> 00:13:01.840 specifications for blade speed and sharpness  to avoid "gumming up" the works of the machine. 00:13:01.840 --> 00:13:07.600 We'd like to think that humane regulations  are driven by what's best for the animals. 00:13:07.600 --> 00:13:13.360 But the animal products industries are—after  all—industries; they are profit-driven. 00:13:13.360 --> 00:13:19.760 A preliminary report for the European Union's  legislation found that while gassing the estimated 00:13:19.760 --> 00:13:28.080 "335 million day old male chicks" killed in the  EU annually would cost 1.6/1.7 million Euros, 00:13:28.080 --> 00:13:35.373 the cost of using "rotating or whirling knives which are mincing the chicks in a split second 00:13:35.373 --> 00:13:37.938 ...can be considered not to be substantial." 00:13:37.938 --> 00:13:40.400 So, the decision had nothing 00:13:40.400 --> 00:13:46.000 to do with what was most humane—it was  simply a matter of what was cheapest. 00:13:46.000 --> 00:13:50.880 The maceration of baby chicks has been  exposed time and again in undercover footage, 00:13:50.880 --> 00:13:54.240 which brings me to another pitfall I wanted to address: 00:13:54.240 --> 00:14:02.160 the presentation of undercover exposes. While I do believe that undercover footage is of vital 00:14:02.160 --> 00:14:08.880 importance in the fight for animal liberation, we  must be mindful of the framing and presentation. 00:14:08.880 --> 00:14:15.200 When it comes to undercover exposes, it’s  often what’s not said that’s the most damaging. 00:14:15.200 --> 00:14:20.640 Every time undercover footage has captured  workers—from one country or another—tossing 00:14:20.640 --> 00:14:26.960 live baby chicks into a grinder, news outlets  dramatically recount the unbelievable cruelty. 00:14:26.960 --> 00:14:30.560 And every time, the public is appalled, outraged, 00:14:30.560 --> 00:14:36.960 and disgusted. And every time, they assume that  it's an isolated incident of extreme cruelty; 00:14:36.960 --> 00:14:42.480 and they continue to eat eggs, confident  they're not supporting such brutality. 00:14:42.480 --> 00:14:48.000 The most important message of  all is left unsaid: that this is 00:14:48.000 --> 00:14:55.440 not a barbaric practice isolated to corrupt,  abusive facilities or industrialized farms; 00:14:56.160 --> 00:15:05.680 that grinding up live babies is a welfare  regulation; a worldwide "standard practice." 00:15:05.680 --> 00:15:10.800 The fact that the lines between overt  abuse and standard industry practice are 00:15:10.800 --> 00:15:15.040 so indistinguishable highlights the absurdity 00:15:15.040 --> 00:15:20.000 of animal welfarism and human concepts.  In my essay "The Harm of Humane" from the 00:15:20.000 --> 00:15:26.080 book Vegan Voices, I opened with a specific  example of this from my home state in Iowa. 00:15:26.080 --> 00:15:31.600 In September 2008, an undercover video  documenting routine abuse at an Iowa pig 00:15:31.600 --> 00:15:37.200 breeding facility made international news. The  footage and investigators' notes captured workers 00:15:37.200 --> 00:15:42.160 kicking and beating pregnant pigs with metal  objects, sexually violating them with rods; 00:15:42.160 --> 00:15:46.000 and they were also shown cutting off  the tails and tearing out the testicles 00:15:46.000 --> 00:15:51.280 of piglets without anesthetic, and slamming  sick or deformed piglets against the ground, 00:15:51.280 --> 00:15:55.280 leaving them to die slowly, piled  on top of one another in giant bins. 00:15:55.280 --> 00:16:01.040 Now, while these acts of cruelty were  exposed by vegan activists, the egregiousness 00:16:01.040 --> 00:16:06.160 of the abuse rightfully sparked outrage from  meat-eating consumers. And the food company 00:16:06.160 --> 00:16:12.000 supplied by the farm, Hormel, received over  10,000 calls in two days. In the wire report 00:16:12.000 --> 00:16:17.440 issued by the Associated Press, they quoted  a Hormel spokesperson who called the abuses 00:16:17.440 --> 00:16:21.040 "completely unacceptable"; and they also quoted the farmer, 00:16:21.040 --> 00:16:26.240 who emphasized "We condemn these types of  acts," and called them "completely intolerable, 00:16:26.240 --> 00:16:31.360 reprehensible" vowing to "investigate and  initiate corrective action immediately." 00:16:31.360 --> 00:16:36.800 So, anyone reading the report would be left with  the impression that this was an isolated incident 00:16:36.800 --> 00:16:44.320 of overt cruelty, or—at the very worst—a regular  occurrence isolated to large "factory farms." 00:16:44.320 --> 00:16:50.640 But amidst the catalogued horrors in this article,  the troubling implication of a single sentence 00:16:50.640 --> 00:16:54.000 was easily overlooked. So, of course, that's what I focused on. 00:16:54.000 --> 00:16:58.320 Following the description of the workers'  treatment of piglets, the report stated: 00:16:58.320 --> 00:17:05.448 "Temple Grandin, a leading animal welfare expert who serves as a consultant to the livestock industry, 00:17:05.448 --> 00:17:09.280 said that while those are standard industry practices, the treatment of 00:17:09.280 --> 00:17:14.960 the sows on the video was far from it. 'This is atrocious animal abuse,' Grandin said..." (The Associated Press 2008; emphasis added) 00:17:14.960 --> 00:17:22.145 To be clear, the treatment of the mother pigs was what Grandin deemed "atrocious animal abuse"; 00:17:22.145 --> 00:17:30.320 the acts she waved away as "standard industry practices" were the  unanaesthetized mutilation of newborn piglets, 00:17:30.320 --> 00:17:36.480 and the brutal—and ineffective—slamming of  "defective" piglets against the concrete floor. 00:17:36.480 --> 00:17:41.760 She was not wrong; not only are these practices  legal, they are government-sanctioned methods 00:17:41.760 --> 00:17:46.320 within—but not limited to—the United  States, Canada, and the European Union. 00:17:46.320 --> 00:17:53.806 Within my essay, I implore the reader to ask themself: were you to have watched that video, 00:17:54.051 --> 00:17:59.760 heard the piercing screams of the  mother pigs and their babies, would you have 00:17:59.760 --> 00:18:06.560 spotted the difference between the "atrocious  animal abuse" and "standard industry practices"?" 00:18:07.520 --> 00:18:11.680 When we fail to explain and emphasize that the horrors depicted 00:18:11.680 --> 00:18:19.360 in these videos are not only legal, but actually  government-sanctioned, humane-legislation-dictated 00:18:19.360 --> 00:18:23.600 practices, we leave the public with the  impression that this was the result of 00:18:23.600 --> 00:18:30.640 a few malicious, sociopathic workers or poorly  regulated facilities. Just a few "bad apples. " 00:18:30.640 --> 00:18:35.600 Far from considering veganism, the public is left thinking that 00:18:35.600 --> 00:18:40.800 “well, luckily, the perpetrators were exposed and will surely  be punished. Thank goodness the eggs, meat, 00:18:40.800 --> 00:18:45.840 or dairy that we eat isn't contributing to that kind of abusive behavior.” 00:18:45.840 --> 00:18:51.120 Invariably, when horrific acts are exposed  to the public, there is a call for stronger 00:18:51.120 --> 00:18:56.560 regulations and higher welfare standards.  As activists, we can become caught in this 00:18:56.560 --> 00:19:02.400 self-perpetuating cycle—believing we're fighting  for progress when we're simply running in place. 00:19:03.120 --> 00:19:09.029 An example of this cycle is the rise of cage-free  eggs. I recently published an article, video and 00:19:09.029 --> 00:19:15.360 eCourse on cage-free eggs, which you can find  at BiteSizeVegan.org/CageFree. 00:19:15.360 --> 00:19:21.840 As always happens when I dive into researching a topic—even one I've previously covered—I find so much new information. 00:19:21.840 --> 00:19:26.400 I've stated in several videos and speeches  that cage-free hens have been shown to have 00:19:26.400 --> 00:19:31.920 twice the mortality rate of battery caged  hens. This is a seemingly damning inditement 00:19:31.920 --> 00:19:36.880 of the idea that such humane labels as  "cage-free" are improvements for animals. 00:19:36.880 --> 00:19:42.240 When I began re-researching this statistic,  I found that it's far more complicated. After 00:19:42.240 --> 00:19:47.120 coming across a meta-analysis that seemed  to indicate mortality rates have been on the 00:19:47.120 --> 00:19:54.240 decline worldwide in cage-free systems, such that  the difference between caged and non-caged hens 00:19:54.240 --> 00:20:01.200 is nearly non-existent, I worried that this worked  against the point I'd been making in the past. 00:20:01.200 --> 00:20:07.680 Something I find so incredibly important  in my activism, though, is never 00:20:07.680 --> 00:20:13.360 shying away from new information. Even it if seems like it may go against what I’m aiming to say, 00:20:13.360 --> 00:20:20.080 it's so important to evaluate and present  what's true. And invariably, once I go deeper 00:20:20.080 --> 00:20:24.640 into research I find that what may initially seem to be a contradiction, 00:20:24.640 --> 00:20:28.400 or even something in support of an agricultural practice 00:20:29.280 --> 00:20:38.080 —the underlying reality of anything within the animal  products industry cannot help but be problematic. 00:20:39.040 --> 00:20:42.880 So, I'd like to take you through my own journey with researching the question 00:20:42.880 --> 00:20:46.880 of hen mortality rates in different housing systems—at least in brief. 00:20:47.520 --> 00:20:52.480 Laying hens were originally moved into  battery cages for a number of reasons, 00:20:52.480 --> 00:20:57.760 including profit and management-oriented  benefits such as: reduced labor requirements, 00:20:57.760 --> 00:21:02.240 greater efficiency of space (meaning more birds housed in the same area), 00:21:02.240 --> 00:21:07.760 and lower feed requirements. However, there  were also perceived benefits to the hens 00:21:07.760 --> 00:21:14.160 themselves, including: a reduction in disease  transference, injurious pecking, and cannibalism. 00:21:14.160 --> 00:21:22.720 As demand rose for cage-free systems, multiple  studies found that the mortality rate in non-cage 00:21:22.720 --> 00:21:27.360 systems was higher than in battery cage systems due to those very issues. 00:21:27.360 --> 00:21:32.400 Meaning there was an increase in injurious  pecking, cannibalism and disease transference. 00:21:32.400 --> 00:21:36.080 One of the more comprehensive studies  that I'd quoted in the past found that 00:21:36.080 --> 00:21:42.400 cage-free hens had 2.5 times higher  mortality rates than battery-caged hens. 00:21:42.400 --> 00:21:48.080 But, to be clear, that finding was not  isolated to that study or even one country. 00:21:48.080 --> 00:21:53.680 So, it would seem that cage-free eggs actually  result in more deaths than conventional battery cages. 00:21:53.680 --> 00:21:59.200 However, in more recent years,  researches have pointed out that the reason 00:21:59.200 --> 00:22:04.640 for higher mortality rates may not have  anything to do with the housing system per se. 00:22:04.640 --> 00:22:10.960 Instead, the rates appear more reliably tied to  the genetic strain of hens within the facilities, 00:22:10.960 --> 00:22:16.528 the experience level of managing  staff, and whether flocks are debeaked. 00:22:16.720 --> 00:22:23.040 Researchers argue that as producers have become  more familiar with managing non-cage systems, 00:22:23.040 --> 00:22:28.240 and have started using more "appropriate" breeds,  the mortality rates have been on the decline; 00:22:28.240 --> 00:22:30.800 and they believe this decline will continue. 00:22:30.800 --> 00:22:35.520 Now, at first glance, I was worried  I'd been conveying faulty data. 00:22:35.520 --> 00:22:42.160 That perhaps decline in mortality rates in  non-cage systems was a promising trend in 00:22:42.160 --> 00:22:48.240 support of such humane labels as "cage-free."  But the more I read, the more I found that, 00:22:48.240 --> 00:22:54.400 rather than pointing to reasons for hope, the  causes of mortality decline actually highlighted 00:22:54.400 --> 00:23:02.400 the reality that within the animal products  industries, the solutions are the problems. 00:23:03.200 --> 00:23:08.400 What I mean by this is that every time  our breeding, confinement, mutilation and 00:23:08.400 --> 00:23:15.840 slaughter of non-human animals invariably cause  ethical, environmental and health problems, 00:23:15.840 --> 00:23:23.360 we strive to solve them with different variations of  breeding, confinement, mutilation and slaughter. 00:23:23.360 --> 00:23:28.320 We continue this cycle over and over again—addressing 00:23:28.320 --> 00:23:36.640 problems of our own creation with solutions that  will eventually become our next problem—rather 00:23:37.360 --> 00:23:43.680 than stepping back and questioning  our use of animals in the first place. 00:23:44.480 --> 00:23:51.360 When hens injure and kill one another due to  their breeding and living conditions—both of which 00:23:51.360 --> 00:23:59.440 have been imposed upon them—the solution is to cut  off their beaks and further alter their breeding. 00:23:59.440 --> 00:24:06.443 This has happened before in the reverse.  In Denmark, laying hens were not moved into cages until 1980. 00:24:06.443 --> 00:24:12.047 At the time, the dominant breed of hens was adapted  specifically for non-cage systems. 00:24:12.047 --> 00:24:15.840 When moved into cages, their mortality rate increased 00:24:15.840 --> 00:24:24.655 five times over—the same trend observed when  moving hens bred for battery cages into non-cage environments. 00:24:24.655 --> 00:24:28.720 The problem isn't really the housing, the label, the stocking density, 00:24:28.720 --> 00:24:35.680 or whatever we want to point to: the problem is  us and the way in which we relate to these beings. 00:24:36.320 --> 00:24:40.480 I also want to note that in all the  research I came across about mortality 00:24:40.480 --> 00:24:46.160 rates not being down to the housing system,  the importance of debeaking hens to reduce 00:24:46.160 --> 00:24:50.255 injurious and cannibalistic behavior was strongly emphasized. 00:24:50.255 --> 00:24:56.960 Even if using the "appropriate" breed of hen and having more  experienced management, whether a flock 00:24:56.960 --> 00:25:04.160 was debeaked or not was often the deciding factor  in mortality rates. Of course, debeaking is a 00:25:04.160 --> 00:25:10.640 painful mutilation in which a portion of a  bird's sensitive beaks is cut or burned off. 00:25:10.640 --> 00:25:15.920 I found a statement from Ian J.H. Duncan,  Professor Emeritus and Emeritus Chair in 00:25:15.920 --> 00:25:20.880 Animal Welfare at the University of Guelph, Canada,  that illustrates this predicament. 00:25:20.880 --> 00:25:25.120 He said: "If [producers] do not trim beaks, then feather pecking 00:25:25.120 --> 00:25:30.960 and cannibalism may cause enormous suffering.  If they do trim beaks by conventional methods, 00:25:30.960 --> 00:25:35.680 the birds will suffer from acute and chronic pain... 00:25:35.680 --> 00:25:42.080 Chopping off parts of young animals in order to prevent future welfare problems is a very crude solution." 00:25:42.080 --> 00:25:47.040 And he proposed instead that "likely...the  long-term solution to this problem will 00:25:47.040 --> 00:25:54.000 be a genetic one..." And while certainly less  objectionable than debeaking on a visceral level, 00:25:54.000 --> 00:26:01.760 genetic manipulation of sentient beings to  serve our purposes is not only extremely 00:26:01.760 --> 00:26:09.120 ethically problematic, but—once again—what  got us into this position in the first place. 00:26:09.120 --> 00:26:15.712 When we as activists push for welfare reform,  higher standards, better regulations 00:26:15.712 --> 00:26:24.160 —we are participating in this cycle. We are participating  in a system built upon a faulty and unethical 00:26:24.160 --> 00:26:31.680 premise: that animals are ours to use. That there is a right and acceptable way to use them. 00:26:31.680 --> 00:26:38.640 That the solution to their suffering is to  further control and manipulate their very beings. 00:26:39.440 --> 00:26:43.920 So, after covering examples of what not to say in our activism, 00:26:43.920 --> 00:26:48.640 I wanted to touch on some approaches of  what to say—and how to say it as well as 00:26:48.640 --> 00:26:52.800 ways to remove common barriers that  arise when speaking with non-vegans. 00:26:52.800 --> 00:26:58.720 As activists, we must stay focused on the  universal truth underlying any use of sentient 00:26:58.720 --> 00:27:05.040 beings: that even if we imagine an idealized  small farm, where animals are given ample space 00:27:05.040 --> 00:27:10.960 outdoors, their every need cared for—there will  still come a time when their life is cut short. 00:27:10.960 --> 00:27:17.399 Their entire existence is still based upon  an owner-product framework; 00:27:17.399 --> 00:27:23.040 their value not viewed as inherent, but rather  calculated down to the dollar. 00:27:23.680 --> 00:27:28.480 One way of effectively cutting to this core  truth for non-vegans is to place it within 00:27:28.480 --> 00:27:36.800 a familiar emotional framework. We may have them  envision this idealized small farm, but, imagine, 00:27:36.800 --> 00:27:41.797 in place of the happy farmed animals, a beloved family pet. 00:27:41.797 --> 00:27:44.994 Would it be acceptable to end their pets life? 00:27:44.994 --> 00:27:50.000 What if it was guaranteed they wouldn't  feel a thing; that it would be quick and humane? 00:27:50.960 --> 00:27:56.528 Instantly the unacceptability is clear at a visceral level. 00:27:56.715 --> 00:28:03.040 From that connection, we can explore with them  what the difference is between a pet and the 00:28:03.040 --> 00:28:08.000 sentient beings in the food industry?  Do they not also feel pain and fear? 00:28:08.560 --> 00:28:14.160 We can even give a specific example: when a  mother cow in the dairy industry cries out for 00:28:14.160 --> 00:28:21.360 her calf—taken from her so she will produce more  milk for humans—is that not a mother grieving? 00:28:21.360 --> 00:28:26.720 When she is sexually violated yet again  to induce yet another pregnancy and give 00:28:26.720 --> 00:28:35.353 birth to yet another child who will yet again be taken —how can that not take an emotional and physical toll? 00:28:35.353 --> 00:28:39.120 There's a reason dairy cows' bodies generally give out around age four to five, 00:28:39.120 --> 00:28:44.240 despite a natural life span of twenty years or more. 00:28:44.240 --> 00:28:50.290 Applying such emotionality to non-human animals is often criticized as anthropomorphic 00:28:50.290 --> 00:28:55.760 —an objection that illustrates the contradiction of humane concepts. 00:28:55.760 --> 00:29:02.640 Humane regulations are an inherent admission  of animals’ ability to suffer and feel pain. 00:29:03.200 --> 00:29:08.800 How can we claim that our animals are  healthy and happy—then deny they possess 00:29:08.800 --> 00:29:14.480 these capacities when asked to see from their perspective? We cannot have it both ways. 00:29:14.480 --> 00:29:19.200 This is how profoundly illogical our  thinking is when it comes to animals. 00:29:19.200 --> 00:29:26.320 Knowing better but doing wrong anyway is worse  than having no knowledge. Yet we have the audacity 00:29:26.320 --> 00:29:33.440 to hold the legislative recognition of non-human  sentience on high as a giant step forward 00:29:33.440 --> 00:29:38.480 for the rights of animals, as if  systematically exploiting individuals with 00:29:38.480 --> 00:29:45.680 fully admitted knowledge and comprehension of  their capacity to suffer is something to commend. 00:29:46.560 --> 00:29:50.720 Highlighting this faulty logic and  focusing on the fundamental truth 00:29:50.720 --> 00:29:56.959 we’ve all known since childhood—that it's not okay  to hurt others— 00:29:56.959 --> 00:30:04.800 cuts through all the convoluted justifications and diversions, allowing people to re-connect with their own values. 00:30:04.800 --> 00:30:06.720 As I stated in the opening of this speech, 00:30:06.720 --> 00:30:10.800 activists often fall into the trap of offering gradations of change 00:30:10.800 --> 00:30:16.480 or "humane" alternatives when seeking a more  approachable "entry point" to offer non-vegans. 00:30:16.480 --> 00:30:20.320 I’ve long believed that one of the main reasons people don’t go vegan 00:30:20.320 --> 00:30:25.680 is the immense pain and guilt of  accepting our part in horrific atrocities. 00:30:25.680 --> 00:30:32.640 Confronting the true impact of our choices is  incredibly daunting, so instead we shut down, 00:30:32.640 --> 00:30:38.408 attack, or throw out any number of the standard objections you’ve no doubt heard countless times: 00:30:38.408 --> 00:30:41.520 lions, desert islands, what about protein. 00:30:41.643 --> 00:30:47.600 It’s human nature to raise our guards when we’re  on the defensive—we close off and shut down. 00:30:47.600 --> 00:30:54.524 And it would seem logical as activists to avoid upsetting our audience in order to keep their receptivity open 00:30:54.524 --> 00:30:58.480 —however, this is a perfect illustrative example of walking the line. 00:30:58.480 --> 00:31:01.920 It’s not about making sure not to upset anyone 00:31:01.920 --> 00:31:09.520 —if they’re grasping the truth, they should be upset!  It’s making sure that the push-back to the truths 00:31:09.520 --> 00:31:16.400 we reveal are aimed at their rightful sources,  leading to constructive, well-deserved outrage. 00:31:16.400 --> 00:31:22.000 When we present them with solid factual  information about the industries in an educational setting, 00:31:22.000 --> 00:31:29.280 we supply a “buffer” of sorts—providing  a target for their outrage other than themselves, 00:31:29.280 --> 00:31:34.459 thus sidestepping shut-down and channelling their outrage to action. 00:31:34.459 --> 00:31:40.160 I do want to note that this is not an  attempt to excuse participation in exploitation. 00:31:40.160 --> 00:31:45.920 When I speak to a non-vegan audience, I always  tell them that they deserve to know the truth 00:31:45.920 --> 00:31:49.760 about what they're putting in their body—about  what they're feeding their children. 00:31:49.760 --> 00:31:56.320 They deserve to know how what they eat impacts their  planet. And that they certainly deserve to know 00:31:56.320 --> 00:32:01.070 what they are paying others to do to animals in their name. 00:32:01.200 --> 00:32:08.403 Approaching vegan outreach from this perspective  helps defuse the "charge" of defensiveness and resistance. 00:32:08.403 --> 00:32:13.200 There is no need to pander, sugarcoat, or offer more palatable options. 00:32:13.200 --> 00:32:18.720 I simply present them with factual evidence, allowing them to evaluate 00:32:18.720 --> 00:32:23.520 whether they want to continue supporting actions out of line with their values. 00:32:24.160 --> 00:32:29.520 Another barrier I strive to eliminate in my activism is the issue of trust. 00:32:29.520 --> 00:32:35.520 There are many reasons non-vegans may dismiss the vegan  message, not the least of which is the messenger. 00:32:35.520 --> 00:32:40.880 This is why, when I speak with non-vegans, I am sure to present information put forth by 00:32:40.880 --> 00:32:46.720 their own agricultural industries and governmental  bodies. This not only helps defuse the potential 00:32:46.720 --> 00:32:52.880 defensive charge of some random vegan telling  them how bad things are, but it also allows me 00:32:52.880 --> 00:33:00.960 to show that even the proposed ideal —which is of course never met—is absolutely horrifying. 00:33:00.960 --> 00:33:08.771 This is of particular importance when speaking to audiences in other countries and cross-culturally. 00:33:08.771 --> 00:33:10.560 When I spoke in Dubin, Ireland, 00:33:10.560 --> 00:33:15.280 I dove deep into the humane legislation  of both Ireland and the European Union. 00:33:15.280 --> 00:33:19.280 Now, Ireland is a powerful case  study—it’s essentially the humane 00:33:19.280 --> 00:33:24.880 concept embodied in country form. Cows graze outside in picturesque fields, 00:33:24.880 --> 00:33:31.251 lending support to the common refrain that “it’s not like that here.” And by all appearances and accounts, it’s not. 00:33:31.251 --> 00:33:34.880 Even after some digging, I only found a single undercover video of abuse. 00:33:35.440 --> 00:33:41.360 However, I didn't want to focus on abuse.  I wanted to focus on the ideal standards. 00:33:41.360 --> 00:33:46.025 I told the audience, “the facts I’ll present  today are not of my creation 00:33:46.025 --> 00:33:51.280 —I’ve sourced them from primarily Irish governmental and  industry documents, the European Union," 00:33:51.280 --> 00:33:56.160 and stated that they didn’t even have to  believe me, as I’d be providing a link to a full 00:33:56.160 --> 00:34:02.160 transcript of the talk with citations for every  fact, a bibliography and additional resources. 00:34:02.160 --> 00:34:05.520 This not only provides opportunity for further learning, 00:34:05.520 --> 00:34:09.520 but also removes the significant potential barrier 00:34:09.520 --> 00:34:16.240 of requiring someone to trust in me personally  on issues about which they’re already guarded. 00:34:16.240 --> 00:34:21.575 As animal activists, we do not have to fear presenting the bare facts. 00:34:21.575 --> 00:34:25.040 We don't have to try to sensationalise or exaggerate: 00:34:25.600 --> 00:34:33.840 The truth is bad enough. The ideal—the very best we have to offer—is bad enough. 00:34:34.640 --> 00:34:38.457 And more importantly, we do not need to—and should not— 00:34:38.457 --> 00:34:44.237 compromise the integrity of our ethics in an effort to  make veganism more approachable. 00:34:44.390 --> 00:34:49.440 When we do so, we're supporting the very things we are fighting against. 00:34:50.000 --> 00:34:57.222 We do not have to fear sharing the truth with  others—it's not only vital for the sentient beings 00:34:57.222 --> 00:35:01.862 we are defending, but it's also the most respectful approach 00:35:01.862 --> 00:35:06.880 for the non-vegan with whom we're speaking. They deserve to know. 00:35:06.880 --> 00:35:11.470 And they deserve to make a choice  with all the facts at their disposal. 00:35:11.600 --> 00:35:15.840 I hope that this has been a helpful exploration  of the importance of language in activism. 00:35:16.800 --> 00:35:18.668 Thank you so much for having me. 00:35:18.800 --> 00:35:23.598 I hope you enjoyed hearing my speech from  the Humane Hoax Online Conference. 00:35:23.598 --> 00:35:25.760 To stay in the loop about new Bite Size Vegan content and updates, 00:35:25.760 --> 00:35:31.054 remember to subscribe to the newsletter or  follow the Telegram channel for the most reliable notifications. 00:35:31.208 --> 00:35:33.632 Now go live vegan, and I'll see you soon.