There is no simple, all-encompassing answer to this question; the response will clearly be situation- specific. Let us recall that it was radical groups in the United States that informed the public of the need for reform of animal research. The distribution by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) of the infamous University of Pennsylvania videotapes documenting atrocities by researchers unquestionably galvanized public support for federal legislation, which all sides now admit makes for better research and better animal care. For many years, the National Institutes of Health used these tapes to educate their own researchers.
The confinement agriculture industry has been just as guilty as many activists of distortion — compare advertisements run for many years by a major broiler company showing chickens pecking in a barnyard and averring that the company raises “happy chickens,” when, in fact, the birds were raised in high confinement. Not very long ago, organized veterinary medicine in the United States argued that there are no major issues with United States agricultural systems, only a few bad managers. I would be hard-pressed to find any farmers among the thousands of agriculturalists I have addressed who would make such a statement.
In short, radical groups have no monopoly on exaggeration, distortion, and self-serving rhetoric. Much as we may temperamentally eschew activists, they help to move social recognition of new issues. In the 1970s, when I argued that science and medicine ought to acknowledge, recognize, and manage animal pain, a high official in the scientific community phoned my university and said that I was a “viper in the bosom of biomedicine,” and should be removed from teaching veterinary students. Six years later, to his credit, this official publicly acknowledged his error and, in fact, became one of my references and a cherished friend. Without people on the fringes challenging the status quo, we would not resist complacency.
I have long argued that veterinarians are the natural movers of animal welfare in society, as evidenced by the fact that United States' and British society charge veterinarians with guaranteeing laboratory animal welfare. That society is concerned about farm animal welfare is unquestionable — a May Gallup poll shows that 75% of US citizens want the well-being of farm animals guaranteed by legislation. The vast majority of the public, however, does not accept the vegan-like answer given by activists. They want animal products, but they also want assurance that animals live decent lives. Organized veterinary medicine has not been helpful in resolving this tissue of issues. Veterinarians should examine all opinions on farm animal welfare and then lead in suggesting and implementing rational solutions; I have heard for 20 years that the industry itself wants leadership from veterinary medicine. If relevant information — for example, on forced moulting — comes from radical groups, we should be grateful to them for supplying the information. The operative question is not who supplies the relevant knowledge, it is rather, “Is it true, and if so, how can we fix it?”