Victory?
Sweet hen is sweet
Yesterday, 45 hens from a cage-free egg-laying hen operation arrived. They are adorable beyond belief! Many cage-free operations use commercial brown layers, because they are more docile and less neurotic than most strains of white Leghorns. They are so inquisitive that, after five minutes of sitting amongst them, several were grooming my arm and pecking curiously at my boots. Humans have artificially selected for a bird who can handle the high stocking densities of a cage-free operation and who may very well greet their killers with soft coos and gentle grooming.
I wasn’t going to post about these hens, except I was reading another vegan blog about how Hellmann’s(R) Light Mayo is now using cage-free eggs. The post and comments were mostly along the lines of how this was a real victory for birds.
Cage-free is less cruel than caged operations, but not by much. I would never call moving from the most cruel to a less harmful method of raising animals as a victory, per se, as the birds are still viewed as objects and dominated by humans in oftentimes egregiously cruel manners.
Within reason, the debate is healthy. Heck, my own mind has the debate! On the one hand, I want to see less suffering … the suffering is so immense right now. And having been in a battery-cage operation, nothing would thrill me more than seeing chickens out of cages. The complete denial of self on battery-cage operations is so heart-wrenching. On the other hand, the fundamental problem with eggs is not so much how the birds are housed (I do think that’s a big problem for the birds), but in the fact that we exploit and oppress them at all. All for a product we do not need to survive.
With that all in mind, let me just share with you how the hens who arrived lived before coming to the sanctuary.
They were born at one of Hy-Line’s hatcheries. You might be familiar with the name. Mercy for Animals investigated them, revealing to the public how male and female day-old chicks are treated.
All of their brothers were killed.
They were all de-beaked. Like on cage operations, birds cannot form a normal social structure with such high stocking densities. So they are mutilated.
They were shipped to a small cage-free farm. A small cage-free farm means 10,000 hens in a shed, while a large cage free shed might house 40,000-50,000 hens in one building. This is smaller than a traditional cage operation, in which 60,000-100,000 hens may be housed in one building.
The shed had constant natural air flow, also something caged birds never experience until their slaughter.
The birds had nest boxes – again, this is in stark contrast to the lack of any meaningful enrichment in a cage operation.
There were no dust-baths or perches. Dust-bathing and perching are two key innate behaviors all chickens like to perform.
And, like all hens in the egg industry, at the young age of 2, they were to be slaughtered. California has no “spent-hen” slaughterhouse, so most hens are gassed. This farm gases bird onsite. It is less stressful and less painful than traditional slaughter. It still ends the life of animals who could conceivably live another decade.
I am a believer that many roads can lead to meaningful victory (and, to me, that would be an eventual phaseout of animal products). There are baby step methods that frustrate those who want that big, giant leap from exploitation to liberation. There are direct methods and indirect ones. I happen to think they all have a place, so long as the end goal is not a false sense of rightness, but rather, a sideways route to abolition.
But I cannot bring myself to act like this is some enormous victory for the chickens. I do believe it is meaningful to the birds, in that some of their welfare is improved (nest boxes, slightly more space). Is that small improvement a cause for celebration?I do not think so. Not when I know that the hen pictured had brothers, that she was debeaked, that her sisters unlucky enough to be rescued are dead and composting. Yes, fewer suffering birds is a step in the right direction, but they are still suffering, and we should not give anyone an excuse to feel good about it.
What do you think?
Stephanie Ernst
Marji
Kelly G.
Deb
Mary Martin
Yeah, I saw that blog post you referenced touting the Hellmann’s thing as a victory, & I had pretty much the same reaction you did. Ugh.
I appreciate your mention of “a sideways route to abolition.” As an abolitionist myself, I’m often frustrated by the suggestion that free-range or cage-free are massive improvements in welfare. I don’t want happier animals slaughtered later or more nicely, I want them slaughtered never! I have to remind myself that change happens on a cellular level, as my yoga teacher often says. It’s a practice, and it’s hard.
I agree, Marji. I have to maintain that any small decrease in suffering would be meaningful to the individuals whose lives could be worse. With that said, he way you describe it, and factoring in that the boys are still killed, the changes in their treatment are in fact “small,” and I do find it a bit insulting that this is something I’m supposed to cheer about.
I don’t view this as a victory for animal rights because it doesn’t touch my intention, which is to get them out of there altogether and stop breeding them.
I think one of the biggest problems with all egg operations, is that (as you mentioned) all male chicks are killed, and eventually all egg laying hens are killed. No matter how much “better” farming practices get, this will still be true.
“Cage-free eggs” slideshow: http://humanemyth.org/cagefree.htm
The humane myth messages bombard us daily in countless supermarket displays, magazines, TV ads, and online. Imagine if the truth about all animal agriculture had such relentless presence.
Compromising–to build the illusion of victories or to wish for an eventual real victory to be granted by the animal abusers–only jeopardizes the animals and the AR movement’s progress. Look at what happened to the once effective veal boycott.
Nobody’s against less cruel conditions for the animals. I don’t think the problem is “baby step methods” frustrate activists seeking total animal freedom. The actual problem is activists and organizations identifying themselves as animal advocates but *acting on behalf of the meat industry.* Participating in exploitation (by developing guidelines for “improved” slaughter) helps prolong the exploitation of animal-abusing industries. Do any of us really want to negotiate murder with killers?
Prime example of this problem. Listen to Wayne Pacelle in his own words in that infamous AgriTalk interview: http://www.drovers.com/news_editorial.asp?pgID=675&ed_id=5688&component_id=805 He stated HSUS is not pushing a vegan agenda, not at all trying to shut down animal agriculture or zoos, and will back the interests of farmers to help them maximize efficiency and profits.
Animal groups that resist peddling the humane myth have small budgets and staff. They aren’t a brand name. And these plain-spoken women and men are the last honest hope for the animals, the earth, and human compassion. Let’s stand with them.
I don’t do any cheering either for “cage-free” egg mayo… Of course I want the exploitation to end completely. That said, I’ve come to recognize too, that the road to AR will be filled with many boulder, rock and pebble removal tactics… So, “hip-hip-hooray”… on the Hellmann’s Light grains of sand.
Focusing on suppliers has serious pitfalls, since suppliers will understandably cater to what consumers demand, not what some nonprofit or special interest group would like to see.
However, if one *insists* on focusing on suppliers instead of doing vegan education to change demand, then at least focus on suppliers adding vegan alternatives to their selection of products. If Hellmann’s added a vegan mayonnaise to compete with Veganaise or Nayonaise, I could call that a legitimate “baby step” or a “step in the right direction”. Switching from cages to cage-free, on the other hand, is a victory only for industry and consumers who want more false assurances of welfare in their purchases. At best, it does nothing for animal rights. At worse, it is a loss for animal rights.
HSUS and PETA act as industry’s long-term strategic advisors when they campaign to get suppliers to switch to cage-free and other methods of enslaving, exploiting, and killing. Why don’t HSUS and PETA campaign for more vegan options from suppliers? Isn’t it obvious? It is because they are strategic partners and allies with animal agribusiness, not opponents of animal agribusiness.
I agree Dan – It doesn’t do a thing for AR… But if I were chicken #3289 and could actually stretch my wings — It would make a (tiny) difference to me…
I don’t support any welfare measures at all. But I feel they are going to happen with or without little old moi. I’m sorry… But does the concern with animal use AND suffering make me any less vegan? Any less of an animal advocate?
For me and my activism… I believe in a “holistic approach” -everything matters. Will many people continue to eat mayo if they believe “cage free” is more ethical? Sure… Will many people ponder… “Hummm – cage free? Yikes! That means birds are actually in cages! Maybe I should investigate further?” Maybe this person won’t like all that they discover, and become vegan altogether??? I don’t know. None of us knows this…
All I do know is that hsus/peta are going to do what they will no matter what. And I once heard a wise man say “Forget about peta”… And honestly, I’ve done my best ever since to do so. Hence the sarcastic “hooray” – And aside from this rebut… I move on.
If the so-called “movement” did more of what I wrote in my last post, perhaps you wouldn’t even have to be born as chicken #3289. Further, I’m not sure I agree that I’d rather be in a cage-free facility, or give a flying crap either way. I’m still covered and standing in excrement; I still breathe constant ammonia stench; I still am psychologically tortured living crammed together; I’m still de-beaked; I’m still forced molted and almost (or actually do) starve to death; I’m still likely tortured in transportation and slaughter, possibly including being boiled alive; I’m still born into hell for the crime of simply being born. BUT! I can spread my wings! WOW, now there is daily bliss that offsets ALL the abject misery and then some! I guess I don’t care about being tortured virtually to death my whole life, so long as I can SPREAD MY F*****G WINGS!
Most importantly, Provoked, implying that you support cage-free because industry will inevitably market the animal products of welfarism anyway (which is approximately what your argument amounts to) is the EXACT same argument as saying you support animal product consumption because industry will inevitably market, and people will consume, animal products anyway. Wake up.
PETA and HSUS may do what they will do no matter what, but so will I criticize them and their supporters and apologists until they change, NO MATTER WHAT. Why? Because it’s the right thing to do. They are a huge part of the problem. Animal “advocates” who support them or ignore them are also part of the problem.
Though cage-free is not a “victory” for the chickens it is a small step to get others to think about their actions of purchasing eggs at all. Fortunately I don’t need to buy eggs for my hubby (who is still and omnivore). We have rescued hens here who insist on laying eggs in their nest boxes which are in what we call the “poultry palace”. And when they don’t lay he goes without. And when they stop laying (Red is still laying on occasion after 13 years!!) I probably won’t notice and I definitely won’t care. They are unique creatures who love as much as any human can.
Thanks Marji for the thought-provoking post.
I have a question to Marji or anyone else about the statement
“Like on cage operations, [cage-free] birds cannot form a normal social structure with such high stocking densities.”
This seems clear, but does anyone know of studies on the issue? If hens cannot form a normal social structure in high densities, what social structure if any do they form? Do they develop anything like friends or recognized acquaintances whom they repeatedly seek out? Or do they remain a crowd of strangers?
Hi Dan… I did say a “tiny” improvement in quality of life… I didn’t for a moment to discount all the other ills – But BTW – I don’t think they do “forced moulting” anymore — It’s just not profitable enough. http://www.upc-online.org/battery_hens/70708forcedmolting.html
And I don’t know where you get that I said “I support cagefree”… Out of “I don’t support any welfare measures” (?).
But perhaps you are right… Rather than just ignore “campaigns” that promote better treatment – I think instead I will continue to do just what I did moments ago. To contact Hellmanns (or any other welfare target) and counter with my vegan request.
I told Hellmanns that they are missing a whole market of possibilities in not making “egg free” mayo and dressings. That there are many people who would gladly purchase these products because they do not wish to consume eggs at all. I told them my favorite brand was Veganaise, but many people prefer Nayonaise. And to please consider this in their product line.
Now, I guess if 99,999 people more do the same – they might consider this request. One down — Everyone elses turn.
https://secure.hellmanns.com/contact_us.aspx
You are right – At least this is an action consistent to my beliefs. But blasting hsus/peta (for me) is just a waste of time, that I could be doing something more productive… And I think I just found out what that is… So thank you! ;)
I would rely on United Egg Producers’ assurances (in Provoked’s link) about forced molting about as much as I would rely on Smithfield Pork’s animal welfare assurances; that is, not at all.
That said, it’s beside the point. What I’m opposed to is all animal exploitation per se, regardless of treatment.
Regarding Kathi Richards’ comment, I should point out that chickens in the wild eat most of their eggs, replenishing the nutrients lost in egg generation. Today’s genetically-designed chickens produce eggs at a far higher rate than chickens in the wild. When people take the chickens’ eggs instead of letting them eat their own, they can suffer malnutrition, and almost always are malnourished in commercial operations. Of course, if the chickens have been debeaked, they’ll need help breaking the egg shell.
Dan… You’re right that the birds with beak multilations have an almost impossible time grooming or foraging… let alone breaking one of their own eggs. I feed the hens their eggs and they love them! They go into an excited (comical) frenzy, resulting in yolks on their combs, feathers and toes… I don’t think any birds should be denied this thrill. Nope, not for all the mayo in the world.
You’ve managed to capture my thoughts exactly. Cage-free could conceivably, if it is done in any meaningful way, marginally improve the lives of egg laying chickens. But they are still debeaked, denied any of their natural habits, used, abused, and murdered. And as much as I am happy for the few birds that are ‘lucky’ enough to live in a cage-free facility and get to enjoy a minuscule amount of improvement in their life, I do not think it is any sort of victory and definitely not a reason to celebrate. We are still slaughtering billions of chickens a year for products that we do not need in any way. That is the bottom line.
I love your idea of contacting companies that begin marketing their products as cage-free and suggesting the idea of egg free instead. How many more customers they would get, the health benefits, all the wonderful things they could enjoy if they would veganize their products. Victory for them, and an actual victory for the animals.
Lest someone suggest that I’m promoting single-issue campaigns to get suppliers to produce vegan products, I’d like to clarify that I’m not. I still think educating individuals about the how and why of veganism is, by far, the most effective advocacy one can engage in.
I’m merely suggesting that if nonprofits *insist* on single-issue campaigns because they are a great source of fundraising (and they are a great source of fundraising, which explains why nonprofits carry them out), they should do vegan product campaigns (e.g. vegan mayonnaise; vegan menu items) instead of welfare campaigns (e.g. cage-free egg mayonnaise; cage-free menu items).
Why are single-issue campaigns, even vegan ones, problematic? Because without a corresponding paradigm shift in the moral status of animals, they are just more “low hanging fruit” that will grow back on the animal exploitation tree. Hellmann’s might roll out a vegan mayonnaise one year (victory!), then two or three years later discontinue it because of a lack of demand or similar economic reason (defeat). This is *inherent* in all single-issue campaigns, whether for new products, new welfare regulations, or new laws.
This is why vegan education itself is so necessary. There can never be enough vegan education because new products, regulations, and laws can be taken off the shelf or repealed; but hearts and minds, once genuinely convinced that animals are persons to be fully included in the moral community, and once educated on how to go and stay vegan, almost always stay vegan for a lifetime and influence others.
P.S. — I mentioned “animals are persons” in my last comment. Some people confuse the words “people” and “person(s)”. “People” is a synonym for “humans”. “Persons” are beings (or entities, such as a corporation) who (that) are due serious moral (or legal) consideration. So, “animals are persons” makes sense, but “animals are people” does not make sense.
I just sent a vegan request off to Hellmann’s after reading Provoked’s comment. So just 99,998 more to go!!!!
That’s great! And actually I got a response back that said “You’d be pleased to know that there have been similar requests. And the marketing department has the product under consideration”.
Hey – Who knows what small good might come from an unorganized “effort”! ;)