Veterinary Medical Ethics

Ethical question of the month —September 2020

Farmers and human nutritionists complain that food is too cheap. Others claim that there is a “cheap food” policy in western countries that adversely affects the competitiveness of local producers while benefiting large corporate agriculture. Many of the least expensive foods available are convenient but nutritionally deficient. Nevertheless, cheap food is seen as a benefit for those on limited incomes and politicians are reluctant to support policies that lead to higher food costs. Accepting that many animal welfare improvements will increase the costs of production, how does one balance the welfare of livestock with that of people on limited incomes?

An ethicist’s commentary on cheap food versus animal welfare

There are numerous questions of balancing cheap products with someone’s welfare. For example, many of the products we purchase in “big box stores” are cheap, because the people who produce them, usually in Third World countries, are grossly underpaid. In some cases, these products may be the result of child labor, with children being paid a pittance and working very long hours to meet the demand. This is equally true of food products depending on underpaid agricultural workers. However, as the ancient cliché goes, “two wrongs don’t make a right.” Or, to invoke another cliché, we should not be robbing Peter to pay Paul.

It is an unfortunate fact of human life, illustrated by the above, that exploitation is the underpinning of human civilization. Despite the fact that India, for example, is much touted for “reverence for life” exemplified by Gandhi, and supposedly instantiated in the treatment of cows, this is far from the truth.

Consider this account: Despite possessing a theoretical basis of concern for animal welfare, India, which is 80% Hindu, has an extremely poor track record in practical animal welfare. A 2005 article written by a former Dean of a veterinary school in India and two New Zealand animal welfare officials makes this clear: “In Asia and the Far East, livestock undergo major suffering due to malnutrition, overcrowding, and ill-treatment. At slaughter, animals are handled roughly and watch other animals being killed; stunning is not practiced…. Developing countries with a rich heritage of cultural and religious traditions have not sheltered livestock from abuse… It is also ironic that this happens even though most of the religions in these countries deify animals” (1).

This illustrates that despite ideological and religious protestations, animals are at the base of the ladder of exploitation. If we are trying to interrupt exploitation, it makes sense to concern ourselves with how food animals are treated. Increased sensitivity to how animals are treated may well entail increased sensitivity to the humans at the bottom of the ladder and for those who produce the animals. Lord knows that historically it has not worked in the opposite direction. Even as we have increased our sensitivity to humans, we have failed to carry this to animals, resulting in the cavalier treatment of animals manifest in industrial agriculture.

As Martin Luther King once remarked, “no one is free until everyone is free.” As long as animals are exploited, even for the poor, exploitation becomes a mainstay of our civilization. Referring exploitation to the most disenfranchised suffering human beings in society assures that we will always need something to exploit. For that reason, we should not solve problems of the poor by dumping them onto animals. In fact, if we had no animals to exploit, the problem of poverty could only be solved appropriately at the level that it arises.

Ethical question of the month —December 2020

New vaccines created for human medicine are most often developed using biotechnology to produce genetically modified organisms designed to produce a protective immune response. Those who reject the use of these life-saving products are considered dangerous, misinformed radicals. When the same technologies are applied in agriculture to produce effective vaccines for livestock or to produce drought-resistant crops, those who oppose the production and consumption of these crops, including feeding these products to livestock, are considered enlightened environmentalists. Is it ethically sound to accept the use of biotechnology to produce vaccines for humans while rejecting that same technology to produce vaccines and feed for organic livestock or food for human consumption?

Responses to the case presented are welcome. Please limit your reply to approximately 50 words and forward along with your name and address to: Ethical Choices, c/o Dr. Tim Blackwell, 6486 E. Garafraxa, Townline, Belwood, Ontario N0B 1J0; telephone: 519-846-3413; fax: 519-846-8178; e-mail: tim.e.blackwell@gmail.com

Suggested ethical questions of the month are also welcome! All ethical questions or scenarios in the ethics column are based on actual events, which are changed, including names, locations, species, etc., to protect the confidentiality of the parties involved.