What would a capitalistic society be without its brands? Without the golden arches, hood ornaments and maple syrup bottles shaped like old women? If you want to burgeon your brand, you’re going to have to slap on a snazzy logo and pray consumers take notice.
In the food industry, competition between brands is so fierce that many producers have resorted to cluttering their cartons, boxes and bags with endless health claims, certifications and third-party endorsements. Got a “Certified Organic” logo or a “whole grain” claim on your package? Consumers will happily pay extra for your merit-bedecked fodder, no questions asked.
But what people don’t know is that companies can decorate their packages with countless claims that are completely unfounded. Only a select few are based on very specific criteria, and those standards – especially when it comes to animal welfare – are a lot lower than you probably assume.
The trend lately among self-pronounced “conscientious omnivores” is to exclusively purchase “humane” animal products. These are products that have (supposedly) met certain standards set by at least one of several animal-welfare organizations and will tout labels such as “Animal Care Certified,” “Certified Humane Raised & Handled,” “Animal Welfare Approved” and “American Humane Certified.”
But in reality, such labels mean very little: not only are their “humane” standards mind-bogglingly low to begin with, but there have also been countless exposés by major news networks documenting the horrendous conditions of these “certified” farms. And don’t forget – even the animals on farms that do comply with the certification standards are killed in the end, in the same slaughterhouses as conventional factory-farmed animals.
Other popular labels, including “free-range,” “cage-free” and “organic,” have literally no connection to animal welfare whatsoever – although they certainly provide the illusion. As specified by the USDA, for eggs or poultry meat to be labeled as free-range, the birds must have access to the outdoors. However, on most free-range poultry farms, “access” is provided in the form of a single hen-sized door in a building that houses tens to hundreds of thousands of birds. Needless to say, the vast majority of these animals never see the light of day. Free-range beef, pork and lamb are no different.
“Cage-free” eggs are equally misleading. Cage-free facilities are basically just large warehouses packed with the same number of hens as conventional battery-cage henneries. Each bird has less space to move than the area of a standard sheet of paper. They are forced to sleep in their own accumulating excrement, tripping over the bodies of dead hens and often breaking their legs – in which case they will inevitably starve to death because they can’t reach their food.
Finally, I want to address the tragic misinterpretation of various health claims as indicators of animal welfare. Labels such as “antibiotic-free,” “hormone-free” and “organic” have absolutely nothing to do with the treatment of animals. They are simply traits relating to the feed given to livestock before they were sent to slaughter.
It is not an accident that these labels are deceiving and poorly explained. Producers know that many consumers are bothered by the way farm animals are treated, so they capitalize on people’s attempt to “have their cake and eat it too.” Consumers are willing to pay a little extra if they can clear their conscience without having to give up their ham-and-cheese omelets, and deceptive certifications create just the illusion they need.
But the most infuriating aspect of many of these labels is the use of words like “compassionate” and “humane” to describe practices that involve the exploitation of sentient beings, whom are all still slaughtered when it is no longer profitable to keep them alive. There is absolutely nothing humane about that.
If you care about the treatment and exploitation of farm animals, going vegan is the only effective option. Don’t fall for the marketing schemes behind “compassionate” labeling – it is impossible to “compassionately exploit” another being. That’s simply oxymoronic.
Clarification: I’ve received several comments expressing confusion over my use of the term “domesticated animals” in last week’s (10/4) article. A domesticated animal is any animal who has become dependent on humans for survival, usually over several generations of selective breeding. This includes both farmed animals as well as those animals we commonly keep as pets. I maintain that it is unethical to selectively breed animals in such a way that strips them of their wild faculties (the very definition of domestication); however, we must care for those animals already in existence. Please visit www.wihumane.org for information on animal adoption.
Why would you want to meat cage free anyway? Veal tastes much better when the calf’s movement has been restricted before it is slaughtered. And the meat of free range chickens is more rubbery.
I totally agree – The issues with animals is not only in their “use” but in their UNNECESSARY killing as well.
Apophis apparently doesn’t get it… There’ something very disheartening about an adult who knowingly steals milk from a baby as all people do who consume dairy. The cow’s milk was meant for the calf. People would be much better off (and the animals too) if we just weaned ourselves from the animal products we DON’T NEED.
Have you even read the standards of Certified Humane? Your claim that the animals from these locations are slaughtered in conventional facilities is untrue. There are a lot of smaller facilities that do not process thousands of animals a day and process mostly animals from small farms where the animals are actually treated well. I understand why you feel you need to attack this kind of work. Admitting anything less than “killing animals for food is wrong” would lessen your argument that going vegan is the only option. Do you know how many squirrels and other animal beings are killed when mowing down a field of crops to support your vegan choices? Unless, of course the field is Monsanto corn, in which case there will be nothing else alive for miles…
Sorry, but there are better options out there for meat eaters, whether you like it or not. The small farmer is making a comeback. There is still along way to go and there are those unethical people who will throw labels on something to sell more stuff. But the facts remain that some of these standards actually do mean something and there are farmers that care about the treatment of their land and animals. I think animals that have lived a good life can be killed for food. You don’t. And you are entitle to your belief. But don’t try to diminish the efforts of people out there trying to make a difference.
There’s no doubt that cage-free hens often don’t lead great lives. But some of the claims in this story are inaccurate. For example, cage-free hens have a lot more space per bird than caged hens do. Caged hens typically get 67 square inches per bird, while cage-free hens get anywhere from 144-216 square inches per bird. (Keep in mind a piece of paper is 93.5 square inches, so cage-free hens get more space than a piece of paper, contrary to the claims in this article.) As well, they can nest, perch, and walk, unlike caged hens.
It’s not to say that cage-free is cruelty-free, because it’s not. But to deny that it’s better than cage confinement seems misleading.
More info at:
http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/confinement_farm/facts/cage-free_vs_battery-cage.html
manfred,
I have indeed read the standards of the Certified Humane program, and I find it terribly disturbing that people consider this an improvement. It is NOT true that animals from “certified humane” producers are slaughtered in separate facilities. The slaughterhouses merely have to meet AMI guidelines, which is nothing to be impressed by.
Furthermore, I vehemently reject the notion that animals ‘processed’ in smaller facilities fare any better than those in larger ones. They are all killed, their bodies dismembered for human use. There is no such thing as humane slaughter or humane exploitation. That is the ultimate oxymoron.
–
And Lesley,
Do you realize that 144 sq. ft. is the same as one square foot? That’s the size of a standard kitchen floor tile. Can you imagine living your entire life in such a small space relarive to your body size? I would hardly call that “humane.” Even the high end of the cage-free space allotment (216 sq. ft.) is only 14in x 14in. That is such an insignificant difference from conventional standards.
Your claim that I should not be critical of those producers who are pushing for more “humane” welfare standards proves that you are buying into their scheme and do not understand how insignificant the differences between conventional and Certified Humane standards actually are.
Those consumers who claim to care so much about the treatment of animals by purchasing Certified Humane products could do so much more for them by going vegan.