Why I’m A Vegan Against Animal Welfare

Grant Barnes: Would you clarify your position
on welfarism.

Sure.

I feel like a politician: clarify my position.

Hi it's Emily from Bite Size Vegan and welcome
to another vegan nugget.

When I recently held back-to-back live Q&A
sessions on Facebook and YouTube, there were

so many great questions but such limited time.

If you missed either of the Q&A sessions,
the links to those videos are in the description

below.

So today I wanted to provide a more comprehensive
answer to an important question I received

on the Facebook live stream: what is your
position on animal welfare, or more specifically,

welfarism.

If you haven’t guessed by this point: I
am not a welfarist.

Shockingly, the title of this video is not
click bait.

For those not familiar, animal welfare, animal
rights, and animal liberation are not synonymous

terms or approaches.

In this video, we’re not going to get into
the nuances of rights vs liberation, but I

will explore that further in a separate installment.

For the purposes of this video, I’ll just
use the term liberation.

Both animal welfare and animal liberation
operate on the premise that non-human animals

are sentient beings capable of suffering,
and thus deserving of consideration and protection.

The exact nature of this consideration is
where the approaches diverge.

Welfarism seeks to improve conditions for
animals within the existing systems of our

food, entertainment, research, and commercial
industries, as well as provide protection

for pets and wild species impacted by human
activity.

In regards to so-termed “food animals,”
free-range, cage-free, grass-fed, and humane

labels are products of welfarism.

I address the welfarist/humane approach in
many videos, and I go into great depth in

my speech “The Best We Have To Offer.”

See the description for links.

But I felt it would be valuable to address
this question in a dedicated video and in

a more conversational manner than my more
highly academic, comprehensive speeches.

There are several issues with the welfarist
approach.

Welfare regulations are designed to spare
animals any “unnecessary” suffering—the

unspoken implication being that some suffering
is necessary when it benefits humans.

Animals are still relegated to property status,
every aspect of their lives and deaths dictated

by humans.

Animal liberation denies the superiority of
humans to other species and vehemently rejects

the belief that one can kill with compassion.

There has long been active debate between
welfare and liberation camps.

There are vegans within the welfare camp who
argue that though the ultimate goal is total

liberation, there is value in improving the
conditions for those animals currently in

our systems of exploitation.

While there is certainly validity in this
position, I find it vital to take an honest

look at what welfare regulations actually
mean for the beings they are designed to protect.

This is the entire premise of my speech from
Dublin Ireland.

I spent many hours pouring over some of the
most advanced animal welfare laws in the world—the

very best we have to offer—to determine
the actual implication for the animals.

I’ll share a particularly telling example
that I covered in my response during the Q&A:

So the EU had this whole thing of banning
battery cages for laying hens.

And everyone was like ‘Ooh, laying hens,
eggs in the EU they’re not in battery cages

- we’re great!’

And that’s what the public hears, but when
you actually look into the legislation, and

people are like “well now, layer hens are
going to get 750 square centimeters each it’s

going to be fantastic!’

What actually happened is instead of battery
cages—or “barren” battery cages—they

now live in “enriched” battery cages,
which means battery cages with some furniture

and maybe a little more space.

So, it even says in the legislation 750 sq
cm per chicken, 600 of which are usable.

So really each chicken has 600.

A barren battery cage chicken has 550.

So this groundbreaking thing that everyone
freaked out about gives chickens an extra

50 sq cm each.

And now they have furniture to bump into and
because laying hens are bred to produce eggs

insanely frequently, they have very brittle
bones, they are very prone to osteoporosis

and fractures and now they have more stuff
to bump into and so they actually have higher

fracture rates.

And non-caged hens have twice the mortality
rate of battery-caged hens.

So, when we look at this, what are we really
improving?

What it seems that we are accomplishing with
welfare is making ourselves feel better about

doing the exact same thing that we’ve been
doing, but now we don’t have to worry about

it.

That doesn’t really do much for the animals,
I don’t think.

This was done, like 1999 or something, when
it came time so now the ban is supposed to

be in place, there were, I think it was 9
that said either we’re not going to be ready

or we might not be ready or probably not going
to be ready.

This was 12 years later.

They had 12 years to add 50 sq cm per chicken
and some furniture, and they couldn’t do

it.

I mean it’s astoundingly ineffective.

And I think it does so much damage because
what the public sees, and what people see

is: “eggs are now humane.”

And when you look at it, the EU started eating
more and more and more eggs when this happened.

So, it actually seems to make it worse for
the animals because now the demand is even

higher.

Humane stuff is, I think, incredibly dangerous
because it gives us the ability - I mean,

we’re human, and we will do anything we
can to not have to change a darn thing about

what we’re doing.

If we can keep doing what we want to do and
feel good about it, that’s like the holy

grail and that’s what welfarism allows us
to do.

As far as what it does for the animals - I
don’t think much, honestly.

This ability to continue exploiting animals
without guilt is what I mean when I say that

welfarism and humane treatment are worse than
factory farming.

Here is another concrete example from Ireland,
one of the most idealized countries for humane

treatment of farmed animals.

Just prior to this portion of the speech,
I’d covered how mother pigs are confined

in farrowing crates throughout their pregnancy,
only to have their babies taken time and again:

The sooner her babies are taken, the faster
she can “re-enter production.”

At her “time of service,” the astounding
term for forceful penetration of her vagina

with an instrument full of boar semen, she
may legally be chained in place, one of the

number of exceptions allowing the tethered
restrained of pigs.

Tethering stalls as a whole, where pigs were
chained in place all the time were outlawed

by the EU in 1995, but as we’ll continually
see with all regulations, this came with ample

exceptions, loopholes, and a 10 year window
for implementation.

In 1998 91% of Ireland’s mother pigs were
still confined to sow stalls or tethered.

And when sow stalls, also known as gestation
crates, were subsequently outlawed through

a 2001 EU decision, again with ample fine-print
exceptions and only for a certain portion

of their pregnancy, Ireland was one of nine
member states found to be non-compliant in

2013, with the European Commission stating
they’d “had twelve years to ensure a smooth

transition to the new system and to implement
the Directive.”

The ineffectiveness of welfare legislation
is not isolated to any one country or governing

body, though the level of supposed protection
does vary greatly.

For example, in the United States there are
no federal laws governing the treatment of

animals in our food industry.

Absolutely none.

We do have an Animal Welfare Act, first passed
in 1966, but like so many welfare acts around

the world, it completely excludes animals
raised for food, as do the majority of state

anti-cruelty regulations.

While animal advocates blame this lack of
legal protection for the allowance of such

cruel practices as intensive confinement,
routine mutilation, including the removal

of testicles, tails, horns, beaks, or toes
without any anesthetic, and the live grinding

up of male chicks in the egg industry, among
other atrocities, welfare legislation does

not by default eradicate such abuse.

For example, it’s a worldwide standard to
dispose of male chicks by tossing them into

a grinder while fully conscious.

This isn’t a barbaric practice isolated
to corrupt, abusive facilities.

Grinding babies is a welfare regulation.

It’s part of the “necessary suffering.”

If you’re wondering why this hasn’t been
exposed on the news, it has.

And every time it’s people are appalled,
outraged, disgusted.

They wonder how any person or industry could
be so barbaric.

And they continue to eat eggs, not realizing
they’ve just answered their own question.

The European Commission estimates that the
EU kills 330 million chicks every year, with

global estimates at 3.2 billion.

I could talk about this subject for days and
still not cover everything.

And I’ll certainly continue to explore its
depths in future videos.

But I think perhaps what may bring the most
clarity regarding the efficacy of welfarism,

is imagining these measures being applied
to ourselves:

I mean it really is absurd when we step back
and think about it.

Do we have manuals on how to humanely rape
hamans?

Or how to compassionately kidnap?

Or ethically rob?

Of course not because those are oxymorons.

They cannot coexist.

But when it comes to our treatment of animals,
we will bend over backwards and create massive

paper trails of regulations to feel good about
what we are doing.

We turn these living beings into data points,
flowcharts, and percentages—calculate to

a decimal point’s certainty the exact cost
of every aspect of their lives and details

for their deaths.

We relegate the annual mass murder of over
3 billion day-old conscious, innocent babies

to a footnote.

A footnote in a study conducted for the welfare
regulations we’re so graciously creating.

We deem them legally sentient, deserving freedom
from hunger, thirst, discomfort, pain, injury,

disease, fear, distress and mental suffering,
as the EU did—then use this very recognition

of their capacity to feel the same emotions
and sensations as we do to design—in language

so disturbingly detached it’s nothing short
of sociopathic—the exact manner in which

we may legally violate, imprison, cut, burn,
alter, and murder them.

This is how profoundly illogical our thinking
is when it comes to animals.

It goes against all basic human understanding.

Knowing better but doing wrong anyway is worse
than having no knowledge.

Yet we have the audacity to hold this legislative
recognition of non-human sentience on high

as a giant step forward for the rights of
animals.

As if systematically exploiting individuals
with fully admitted knowledge and comprehension

of their capacity to suffer is something to
commend.

Look what we offer ourselves as evidence of
progress: one news report extolled the reduction

in animals slipping and falling on their way
to slaughter in one abattoir in one country.

When we look at our actions from the other
side, the perverse absurdity of our deluded

self-congratulations is astounding.

If you were in the place of these beings,
how grateful would you feel if your captor

laid down a bathmat on the ramp to your execution?

Is this really the best we have to offer?

Being the most courteous murderers?

The most considerate rapists?

Pouring untold resources into these convoluted
laws and regulations, all the while completely

blind to the fact that there’s another option
entirely.

I hope this video has more thoroughly illustrated
why I’m not a welfarist.

I’d encourage you to see the links I’ve
provided below as well as on the blog post

for this video to do your own further research.

If you really want to dive in, see my full
speech from Ireland, and its respective blog

post.

As I’ve said many, many times, in order
to make informed decisions, to look ourselves

in the mirror and ask if we are truly living
the values we purport to have, we must know

the truth.

We must educate ourselves about what is really
going on, not rely on what we’ve been taught.

We must make decisions based on facts, not
fantasy.

This is why I am so emphatic about putting
in the hours upon hours of research to get

to the truth.

To provide what the laws actually say, not
simply offer my personal opinion.

I’ll leave you with the powerful words of
Alex Herschaft, the founder of the Farm Animal

Rights Movement and a Holocaust survivor:

"I don't believe in small improvements to
the living conditions of the chickens and

cows.

Slightly increasing the sizes of the cages
is like giving me a hot meal while I'm imprisoned

in the ghetto.

It's like asking an abusive man to continue
beating his wife but in a less brutal manner.

The solution is for all of us to stop eating
meat, eggs and dairy products."

Please share this video with your friends,
family, and within any discussions of animal

welfare, so that others may find solid, cited
information on this topic.

I would like to thank my $50 and above patrons
and my whole Nugget Army Patreon family for

making it possible for me to conduct this
research, deliver speeches all over the world

and create hundreds of free educational videos.

If you’d like to help support Bite Size
Vegan’s educational efforts, please see

the support links below or the link in the
sidebar.

Subscribe to the channel and enable notifications
for fresh vegan content every week.

Now go live vegan, don’t buy the humane
lie, and I’ll see you soon.

Our rationalizations and justifications are
of no use to those whom we exploit.

For the cow, the pig, the chicken, duck, turkey,
for the lamb or sheep—they don’t know

the name of the company or person enslaving
them.

They don’t know what size the farm is or
in what country.

They are just as robbed of their rights and
their lives regardless of location.