-
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.