Ooh, sorry about the “animal-user” phrase. That is a bit impolite.

That’s interesting that you note that you weren’t convinced by any vegetarians/vegans to start supporting humane farming — I hadn’t really thought about it, but I started to buy humanely-farmed foods totally on my own as well. Amazingly enough, ten years ago I had four vegan friends (I lived in Santa Cruz), and despite the fact that they subjected me to numerous you-must-go-vegan pitches, I thought they were crazy and I continued to eat factory-farmed meat at every meal. Which I guess supports your point that being told you “should” go vegan is fairly ineffective. It wasn’t until two years ago that I decided I couldn’t support factory farming, because I started seeing cage-free eggs in the store, and I read up on how miserable life is for farm animals.

Also I’m pleased you’d like to see farm animals have a little more kindness in their lives — me too! I think they need all the help they can get.

While I agree there are degrees of cruelty, a huge and far reaching problem with campaigns for “humane” farming is that they are not presented as less cruel. Instead, they are presented as the solution for cruelty to animals, as if these animals could have happy lives. This has long term consequences for the non-human beings we care about, because it sells the idea that farming can be compassionate.

To begin with, people invision “free-range” farming as chickens and other animals walking freely across a barnyard. The reality is very different. In the photos I’ve seen of “free-range” farms, chickens did not have enough space to flap their wings. And importantly, when chickens and other farm animals are not confined, this can lead to other problems, such as dominance and aggression.

I don’t think any human or non-human would be comfortable being continually pregnant. People who’ve who know farm animals can tell you they miss their young. What happens to the male calves at Clover Farms? They are sold to the veal industry, and within 6 months they’ll be dead. Giving animals room to walk is not going to change that, and it may create other problems for them as well.

Farming is a business based on profit. Allowing farm animals to live their full life spans would be very expensive, and it’s unrealistic, I think, to believe this will happen.

I think my position is comparable to the abolition of slavery (not the Geneva Convention). History is telling in that reforms did not create freedom.

I know you’re sincere, and I’m asking you to think about the long term consequences of promoting animal use as “humane”: When consumers are led to think animals are treated with compassion (which is essential to making profit on “humane” farming), they can eat and use animals with a free conscience. This is not only true for omnivores– many vegetarians have resumed eating meat because they now believe animals are treated kindly. Trading small benefits for a clear message against animal use results in encouraging the use of animal products, which does not help animals at all.

However, I disagree with you about most of your points. First, I think things can be “somewhat” cruelty-free. I really do. I think there is a spectrum of cruelty-free-ness – at one end there’s torturing and killing animals. At the other end, there’s not killing them at all. On a zero-to-one scale it would go something like this:

0 – tortures and kills animals (factory farming, animal abusers, people who run tests on animals)
.33 – not torturing animals, but killing them quickly (humanely raised meat)
.66 – not torturing animals, not killing them (humanely raised dairy cows, cage-free chickens)
1 – not buying any animal products whatsoever (vegan)

Second, I think that while it may be inherently cruel to farm living beings, there’s nothing I can do to stop people from doing it. One million calves were killed this year for veal, and there’s nothing you or I can do to stop that. Are you saying I should oppose farm reform because it is inherently wrong when I could support an initiative that would make the lives of the one million baby cows that will be slaughtered next year slightly better? I’m sorry, it’s not a contest for me. I can’t bear the thought of not supporting a bill that would make their lives better in the smallest degree.

Similarly, according to ChoiceUSA.net (http://www.choiceusa.net/cconcerns_DA.htm), 10 billion chickens, cows, pigs, and sheep are killed each year for food in USA factory farms. If I can help support something that would make the lives of those 10 billion chickens, cows, pigs and sheep slightly better, I certainly will, and that’s why I’m supporting the humane farming initiative. I feel like your argument that I shouldn’t support the humane farming initiative it is similar to the argument people make that the Geneva conventions shouldn’t be supported. Is a prisoner of war camp with torture worse than a prisoner of war camp without torture? Yes. Being locked up = bad. Being locked up and tortured = much worse.

Third, while I agree with you that “cage-free”-ness is not ideal — that cage-free hens are still bred in hatcheries where their brothers are killed, and cage free hens are killed when they are three years old instead of living out their nine-year span — I disagree that this is a necessity of farming. Farms COULD let the hens live out their years. It would be humane, yet still be “farming.” I’d LOVE to buy those eggs, actually. I think it would just call for more stringent “humane” labeling. Also, I think there are other people out there, like me, who would also – at least, the people who commented on my Clover post would: http://www.livingcrueltyfree.com/2007/06/10/clover-milk-certified-by-the-american-humane-association/)

Fourth, I STRONGLY disagree with your statement that other animals fare no better with so-called “compassionate” farming. Sows that are enabled to turn around during the six months they are gestating are obviously better off than sows that are not able to turn around for six months. It’s a quality of life issue for me. Can you imagine not being able to turn around for six months? Calves that similarly are allowed to turn around for six months before being slaughtered are also better off, to my mind, than calves that are not allowed to turn around. Chickens that are allowed to spread their wings are better off than chickens who are confined to tiny cages for the six months they are alive.

Fifth, I disagree with your statement that “compassionate” and “humane” are just marketing tools for the industry. Are you saying I should tell my omnivore friends (of which I have many) that they shouldn’t try to buy humanely-raised veal that was allowed to turn around for the six months of its short life – that my friends should instead buy veal that was locked in a tiny crate for six months of its life? I’m sorry, but I see a difference. A big difference.

Sixth, 1.4% of the U.S. population is vegan, and 2.3% is vegetarian, according to the VRG’s 2003 poll: http://www.vrg.org/journal/vj2006issue4/vj2006issue4poll.htm
This suggests that 96.3% of the U.S. population is eating meat and dairy products from factory farms (and another 2.3% is eating dairy products and eggs from factory farms). Nationmaster.com estimates that there are 301,139,947 people in the U.S. (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us-united-states) This means that there are 289,997,769 meat and dairy eaters out there (96.3% of 301,139,947 is 289,997,769). And I don’t think those 289 million people are going to go vegan any time soon. This is despite the fact that many wonderful vegetarian/vegan institutions have been urging people to go vegetarian/vegan for the past thirty years. Those institutions really haven’t had much success (though the success they’ve had is fantastic! I wish they’d have more!). I think making the world a better place, if not the ideal place, for the 10 billion animals those 289 million people are going to eat is a far, far more effective improvement in living standards for animals than just urging people to give up farming all together.

I doubt any of these arguments have swayed you from your anti-humane-farming-initiative point of view (and that’s fine with me, by the way – I think you’re entitled to your own opinion), but I just wanted to clarify why I think some things can be “somewhat” cruelty-free and why I think the California Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act is a good thing. I am honored that a strongly pro-animal-rights person like yourself cares to comment on my blog – sometimes I forget that there are strongly pro-animal-rights people out there. I live in a world full of uncaring omnivores. You would think the San Francisco bay area would be more animal-friendly, but it’s too much of a food-town to give up eating them, apparently.

It’s inherently cruel to farm living beings. There’s no way that breeding, raising, and killing living beings can be humane.

Some farming methods may seem less cruel, but they don’t make much difference to the animals. For one
example, “cage-free” hens are still bred in hatcheries, where their brothers are promptly killed. After a year or two, egg laying hens are “spent”, and killed just as surely as those confined in battery cages.

Other animals fare no better with so-called “compassionate” farming. And that’s to saying nothing about the impossibility of enforcing regulations.

I care very much about animals, and I know I would not be serving their interests if I compromised their need to not be exploited. The “compassion” and “humane” labels are really marketing tools for the industry.

Please think about the long term affects of activism
which purports to make animal use “humane”. If it can be supported by animal users, it’s unlikely to be much good for animals.