Humane Animal Consumption - Report Example

Humane Animal Consumption Introduction From time immemorial, human beings have adopted innovative ways to ensure food security for the ever increasing population. Conversely, issues such as industrialization and urbanization have increased the demand for food and as a result, people have been forced to devise ways to meet the rising need for food. This has paved way for unethical farming methods that have had a great impact on human health, caused pain and suffering to animals, and negatively affected the general environment. Owing to these effects, debates have arisen over the past whether it is ethical or humane to raise animals in cruel techniques in an effort to expedite their maturity and maximize production. Consequently, this has seen the creation of organizations aimed at advocating for the rights of animals. To capture the attention of animal rearing factories and regulating bodies, animals rights advocacy organizations have continuously encouraged individuals to desist from consuming products from animals that have been raised in cruel conditions. This paper explicates issues relating to humane animal consumption. Definition of humane animal consumption In relation to a definition presented by Abels, humane animal consumption entails being aware of or understanding tolerable animal rearing techniques, consumption of meat and animal products reared in tolerable standards, as well as taking into account the rights of animals when making a choice on the kind of meat or animal product to purchase (para. 4). In the context of humane animal consumption, tolerable animal rearing methods denote free-range or natural systems, and feeding animals with organic feeds or fodder. By purchasing animals bred under tolerable conditions, farmers who have adopted factory animal farming would be forced to adopt humane animal practices. Chicken farming in factory farms can be used as an example to illustrate the inhumane nature these animals endure. Synthetic hormones for instance accelerate the rate of growth. This means that a chicken attains maturity within a few weeks. In other words, this abrupt weight gain contributes to skeletal problems. Rise of industry farming Under the USDA definition, factory farms are defined as "Operations with more than 500 beef cattle, 1,000 hogs, 500 dairy cows, 100,000 egg-laying chickens and 500,000 broiler chickens" (5). According to Kistler, production of adequate amounts of meat to meet the needs of the current population in developed countries through conventional methods of free-range rearing is impracticable (66). In that case, conventional farming techniques have been replaced by modern methods characterized by holding animals in captivity under congestive circumstances. To meet the high demand for meat, animals are infused with hormones that guarantee earlier or faster growth and minimized chances of acquiring diseases (Kistler 66). Food and Water Watch further asserts a dramatic change from conventional animal farming to large scale industrial farming between 1997 and 2007: total livestock units increased by approximately 21 percent between 2002 and 2007, and total number of dairy cows increased twofold (5). Ethical farming According to Rocklinsberg, ethical issues pertaining to animals can be viewed in two ways; rightist and welfarist viewpoints (144). Rightists advocate for a complete discontinuation of meat consumption as well as other products from animals. Welfarists on the other hand acknowledge the fact that one of the objectives of rearing animals is for food. In this respect, they advocate for a humanitarian approach when dealing or rearing animals (Rocklinsberg 144). In this regard, welfarists believe that human beings are duty-bound to shun consumption of animal products from animals nurtured in cruel or atrocious conditions. In addition, they also believe that traders in meat products are also duty-bound to present their customers with information relating to how their animals were reared in order to assist them make an informed choice or decision (Rocklinsberg 144). Ethical and humane animal rearing denotes the ability of animals to access air, adequate amounts of light, and space. Fox notes that "Animals also have natural rights that we, as a matter of custom, respect and uphold as unwritten law" (179). In this view, access to adequate quantities of air, light, and space constitute natural laws. Any activities or process that contradict the concept of natural law can be construed as contravention of animal rights. Fox notes that proponents of industrial farming argue that animals do not have legal rights under common law (179). For instance, they argue that there is no law that prevents chicken from being consumed by human beings. However, the Humane Slaughter Act stipulated by Fox delineates the right of animals to be exterminated or slaughtered in a humane manner (179). In this light, the obligation to treat animals in humane ways falls under moral principles rather that legal principles. In extrapolation, the natural law of animals necessitate rearing animals in environments or conditions that allows them to exhibit their natural behavior particularly their complex associations or relationships(Food and Water Watch 33). An issue of equal importance in relation to humane animal consumption relates to animal diseases. According to Food and Water Watch, keeping animals under crowded conditions aids in the spread of diseases (33). A methodical investigation cited by the Food and Water Watch (33) shows that animals held in enclosed and congested facilities have an elevated chance of acquiring influenza viruses. In addition, it is important to note that restrictions in terms of movement presents an opportunity for the virus to mutate and spread easily. Another reason necessitating consumption of animals raised under humane conditions or circumstances relate to the fact that diseases prevalent in factory farms can easily be transmitted to human beings (Food and Water Watch 33). Practices that risk the lives of both animals and human beings translate to cruel treatment and contravention of animal rights. A study conducted by the United Nations and cited by Beauchamp and Frey showed that crowding of animals in factory farms was one of the factors that contributes to the outbreak of bird flu (887). It is morally wrong to rear animals for human consumption under these circumstances. Cruel nature of milk and meat produced in factory farms People for Ethical Treatment of Animals symbolize milk produced in factory farms as a cruel product. To substantiate their claim, People for Ethical Treatment of Animals argue that the animals milk ought to serve a purpose similar to human breast milk; to feed their calves (para. 2). Cows and calves reared in factory farms are denied this right. Calves are forced to feed on replacement feeds in order for their mothers milk to be sold to human beings. This fact alone validates People for Ethical Treatment of Animals assertion that such milk is attained through cruel. Another point to validate People for Ethical Treatment of Animals assertions include the fact that genes of dairy animals are unethically manipulated to maximize their ability to produce milk. Statistics from methodical investigations cited by People for Ethical Treatment of Animals shows manipulation of genes have increased milk production in the US from 116 billion pounds in 1950 to 185 billion pounds in 2007 despite a reduction of dairy cows in terms of volume by 13 million (para. 5). Dairy cows are also fed inorganic feeds in an effort to maximize their milk production. For this reason, genetic manipulation coupled with over-reliance in inorganic feeds further validates the assertion that milk produced in factory farms is cruel and hence should not be consumed by human beings. Meat from animals reared in factory can also be labeled cruel meat. As further stipulated by People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, the lifetime of a cow is estimated to be twenty years. However, inhumane conditions in factory farms significantly reduce their lifespan to approximately 5 years (para. 4). This kind of inhumane treatment also ought to initiate the fight for animal rights and humane consumption practices. Inhumane nature of the veal industry By definition, veal is meat from a calf. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals argues that purchasing or consuming animal milk promotes or supports the veal industry (para. 8). This is due to the fact that calves are taken away from their parents and fed inorganic feed to expedite their maturity for slaughter. In most cases, a calf is reared in a separate compartment for a span of 18 weeks for it to qualify as veal ready for slaughter (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, para. 8). In this process, these calves are fed replacement feeds that elevate the chances of developing infections such as diarrhea. The feeds according to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are also deficient in iron; this is done deliberately in order to attain the insipid color characteristic of veal (para, 8). In essence, iron deficiency leads to anemia and therefore, calves are forced to endure sickness until they are slaughtered. In ethical terms, no young ones ought to endure the challenges associated with young age in the absence of a mother. In this regard, consumption of milk and veal amounts to inhumane animal consumption, according to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (para. 8). Effects on public health The effects of factory animal rearing on the general health of individuals is enough reason to advocate for humane animal consumption. It is evident from research cited by Food and Water Watch that farming activities in factory farms cause epidemics such as salmonella contamination (29). Factory farming also entails the use of huge amounts of antibiotics to counteract bacterial infections among animals. Food and Water Watch points out that continued use of these antibiotics could give rise to development of bacterial infections resistant to antibiotics which could easily be transmitted to human through consumption of animal products (29). For instance, Food and Water Watch notes "Dairy cows are injected with rBGH, a synthetic hormone that increases udder infection and may increase the risk of certain cancers in humans" (29). In extrapolation, this statement means that as much as the use of synthetic hormones could impact the health of animals, these hormones also elevate the risk of cancers among human beings. Other than in dairy cows, poultry is also known to be nourished with arsenic, a substance that could also cause cancer in humans (Food and Water Watch 29). The risk associated with consuming animals raised in unethical ways cannot be explicated without referring to E.coli. Factory or industrial dairy farming is characterized by feeding grains particularly corn that are scientifically proven to elevate the level and duration of survival of E. coli in animals (Food and Water Watch 29). It is of significance to note that E. coli can easily be passed or transmitted to human beings through meat and could also be transmitted indirectly through animal wastes used as manure. As evidenced by assertions by Food and Water Watch, E. coli in manure finds its way to human beings through crops such as vegetables (29). E. coli contamination calls attention to the definition of humane animal consumption that necessitates consumers to comprehend how animals reared for meat are bred. Findings from a study conducted in the European Union and cited by Food and Water Watch showed that rearing poultry in cages as well as overcrowding are some of the factors that contribute to development and spread of salmonella (30). As mentioned earlier, growth hormones injected in dairy cows conversely encompass inhumane treatment of animals. In accordance to stipulations by Food and Water Watch, synthetic hormones injected with an intention of increasing milk production elevates the chances of developing mastitis among the cows and are also linked with reproductive setbacks (30). Further evidence presented by Food and Water Watch assert that these synthetic hormones elevates the production of a kind of protein referred to as IGF-1 present in dairy milk. The human body supplements itself with its own IGF-1 protein. This means that consumption of milk containing IGF-1 translates to its concentration in the human body. In high quantities, research has shown that IGF-1 elevates the risk of certain kinds of cancers particularly colon, prostate, and breast cancers (Food and Water Watch 30). This shows that inhumane treatment of animals involving unethical injections of synthetic hormones has a negative effect on the health of human beings. In this respect, consumption of meat and animal products from animals reared in factories ought to be avoided as it entails inhumane rearing methods. Environmental Impact Another way to help in better animal rearing practices include criticizing and desist consumption of animals reared in factories on the basis of environmental pollution. Wastes from these factories are some of the highest contributors of environmental pollution. Air pollution is prevalent in areas surrounding factory farms. Other than air pollution, wastes can also find their way into water sources. This could lead to obliteration of aquatic life and pollution of water used by man and animals. According to Food and Water Watch, the effects of factory farms on the environment are not restricted to areas surrounding the farms alone as these effects could extend to food markets in urban areas in terms of contaminated animal products (26). Humane eating societies such as the Humane Society of the United States argue that purchasing products from factory farms is tantamount to supporting and condoning environmental pollution (para. 1). Food and Water Watch further affirm that factory farms are some of the highest contributors of methane gas in the U.S. In fact, the period between 1990 and 2008 saw an increase in the amount of methane gas produced by these farms by 50 percent (Food and Water Watch 26). Factory farms are also some of the highest consumers of water as a resource. Food and Water Watch points out that these farms "consume more than two billion gallons of water every day in the United States" (26). These large volumes of water are attributed to direct consumption by animals and cleaning the facilities to remove wastes. In the context of humane animal consumption, there is no justification of rearing animals at the expense of destruction of the environment. Humane slaughter Humane, in the context of animals consumption, also entails how animals are slaughtered. To aid in humane slaughtering, it is the responsibility of meat consumers to seek clarification from the meat traders concerning how the animal was slaughtered. According to the Humane Slaughter Association, the government plays a critical role in ensuring adoption of humane ways in animal slaughterhouses (para. 3). Some countries such as the United Kingdom have enforced laws proscribing inhumane or cruel treatment of animals in slaughterhouses. A good example includes the Welfare of Animals Transport Orders of 2006 and 2007 covering England among other countries. According this directive, the health of an animal must be evaluated before transit. Additionally, the manner and means of transportation must not cause any harm to the animals, and finally, the driver transporting the animals to destination surpassing 65 km must have documents to verify or prove their proficiency in driving (Humane Slaughter Association, para. 4). On their way to the slaughterhouse, some animals are destined to pass through marketplaces. Some countries have formulated and implemented laws aimed at guaranteeing animals are treated humanitarianly while at the market. For instance, the UK passed a law referred to as Welfare of Animals at Markets Order in 1990 that necessitates individuals handling animals in the marketplace to have prerequisite training in humane animal treatment, and have the capability to treat animals with kindness (Humane Slaughter Association, para. 5). During the slaughtering process, "The animal must be effectively restrained and then stunned, rendering it insensible to pain, and finally bled rapidly and profusely to ensure death before recovery could occur" (Humane Slaughter Association, para. 7). To ensure clients access meat from animals slaughtered humanely, it is the duty of traders to stipulate appropriate standards that meet suppliers must meet. In doing so, consumers are guaranteed of purchasing humane meat. To illustrate how animals are mistreated during transit and slaughter, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals brings forward the point that it is a common practice to deny animals food and water when in transit to slaughter houses or to the market (para. 7). In the slaughter houses, it is also a common practice to tie-up animals in an upturned method to facilitate slaughter. In addition, they are forced to endure pain as their throats are severed without first rendering them unconscious. How animals reared for meat are mistreated People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals have outlined how animals are mistreated. For instance, raising of chicken in overcrowded conditions increases their death rate as opposed to those reared in a free-range system (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, para. 4). In factory farms, dairy cows are regularly reared in shed full of their own wastes. Subsequently, cows are viewed as machines to produce milk and are also forced to give birth on a yearly basis. After giving birth, cows endure additional hardships when their calves are taken away from them. Another way cows are mistreated can be demonstrated when they get sick. Since they are viewed as sources of milk, they are deprived of their right for treatment as injecting them with antibiotics and other drugs means that their milk will go to waste. Animals such as cows have also to go through the painful processes of dehorning and castration. Other painful processes that cows and other animals go through include branding. Branding is done through burning and studies conducted in the past have cited their painful experiences. Other than cows, pigs similarly are forced to endure certain painful processes. For instance, pigs reared in factory farms often go through tail-docking, a process involving cutting off their tails. In an article published in the Independent, Hickman asserts that tail docking puts a stop to any incidents that may result to a pig being bitten by other pigs as it could lead to infections (para. 4). Hickmans assertions are based on accounts from pig farmers in the UK. Hickman notes that farmers in Britain are continuously engaging in tail-docking in pigs despite the government introducing laws prohibiting the practice (para. 1). He cites a study whose results or findings explicated the fact that approximately 88 percent of pig reared for pork undergo tail-docking, and another study that shows approximately 9 million pigs in the UK are reared under cruel and congested conditions (Hickman, para. 3). What makes tail docking a painful process is the fact that no drugs to initiate loss of sensation during the process are used. This makes the process extremely painful and inhumane. Methodical investigations conducted in the past as Hickman notes have labeled pigs as clever, curious and intrusive animals that require objects to play with (para. 9). Congestion in factory farms denies them this right and as a consequent result to biting-off of tails. Animals rights groups such as the Humane Society of the United States argue that dehorning, castration, and tail-docking is synonymous to torture and therefore human being should desist from buying meat from animals reared under these conditions in order to discourage the practices. Conclusion Meat, milk, and other products such as eggs produced from animals reared under inhumane conditions ought not to be consumed by human beings. This is because these animals undergo cruel conditions such as congestion, lack of enough air and lighting, undergo through inhumane treatments during transport to slaughter houses, and inhumane slaughtering practices. In addition, animals reared un factory farms are injected with hormones to expedite their growth and high doses of antibiotics to prevent development of diseases. These animals are also forced to consume unnatural feeds, and their calves are taken away from them. There are also other factors that corroborates the inhumane nature of factory farm products. These include environmental effects such as air pollution, and effects of these products on the health of consumers. For instance, some animal products contain substance that could elevate the risk of developing cancer in human beings. These issue are prove of inhumane circumstances animals endure and therefore, it is the obligation of consumers to request information detailing how the animals reared for meat are bred, reared, transported, slaughtered, and the kind of chemicals used on them. In so doing, inhumane practices would be discontinued. Works cited Abels, Caroline. "On Being a Humanitarian." Humaneitarian N. p., 2015. Web. 21 Mar. 2015. Beauchamp, Tom L, and Frey R, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print. Food and Water Watch. Factory Farm Nation: How America Turned Its Livestock Farms into Factories, 2010. Web, 21 Mar. 2015. < http://www.factoryfarmmap.org/wp- content/uploads/2010/11/FactoryFarmNation-web.pdf>. Fox, Michael W. Laboratory Animal Husbandry: Etiology, Welfare, and Experimental Variables. New York: State University Of New York Press, 2010. Print. Hickman, Martin. "The pain of tail-docking: A fact of life for millions of pigs." The Independent N. p., 01 Dec. 2007. Web. 21 Mar. 2015. Humane Slaughter Association. "Which laws protect animals during transport, at livestock markets and at slaughter." hsa N. p., n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2015. . Kistler, John M. Animal Rights: A Subject Guide, Bibliography, and Internet Companion. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2000. Print. People for Ethical Treatment of Animals. "The Organic and Free-Range Myth." PeTA N. P., n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2015. . Rocklinsberg, Helena, ed. The Ethics of Consumption: The Citizen, the Market and the Law. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2013. Print. The Humane Society of the United States. "Humane Eating." Humanesociety .N. p., n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2015. . Read More