Contents

1 Introduction 2
1.1 The traditional Christian view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Animals and saints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2 What does the Bible say? 4

2.1 Meat eating is ok . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 God has given us dominion over all creatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3 Gods relationship with the world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4 Humans relationship with the world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3 Modern and pro-animal thinking 7

3.1 Modern Christian thinking about animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2 Animal-friendly Christian thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3 Andrew Linzey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

4 What the churches say 9

4.1 Assemblies of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2 Anglican . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3 Episcopal Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4 Evangelical Lutheran Church in America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.5 Methodist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.6 Presbyterian Church (USA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.7 Roman Catholic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

5 CS Lewiss Animal Theology 13

5.1 Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2 Cruel men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3 Nature red . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.4 Pet heaven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

6 The issues 16
6.1 Animal welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2 Climate change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.3 Animal waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

1
Chapter 1
Introduction
For most of history Christians largely ignored ani-
mal suffering.
Christian thinkers believed that human beings
were greatly superior to animals. They taught that
human beings could treat animals as badly as they
wanted to because people had few (if any) moral obli-
gations towards animals.
Modern Christians generally take a much more Some of the saints demonstrated that virtuous
pro-animal line. They think that any unnecessary Christians treated animals respectfully and kindly:
mistreatment of animals is both sinful and morally
wrong.
1.1 The traditional Christian view
When early theologians looked at nature red in
tooth and claw they concluded that it was a natural
law of the universe that animals should be preyed
on and eaten by others. This was reflected in their
theology.
Christian thinking downgraded animals for three
main reasons:
God had created animals for the use of human
beings and human beings were therefore enti-
tled to use them in any way they want
Animals were distinctively inferior to human
beings and were worth little if any moral con-
sideration, because:
humans have souls and animals dont
humans have reason and animals dont
Christian thought was heavily humano-centric
and only considered animals in relation to hu-
man beings, and not on their own terms
1.2 Animals and saints
Not all leading Christians disparaged animals.
St Antony of Padua preached to fishes
St Francis of Assisi preached to the birds and
became the most popular pro-animal Christian
figure
Father Francis and his companions were
making a trip through the Spoleto Val-
ley near the town of Bevagna. Suddenly,
Francis spotted a great number of birds of
all varieties. There were doves, crows and
all sorts of birds. Swept up in the mo-
ment, Francis left his friends in the road
and ran after the birds, who patiently
waited for him. He greeted them in his
usual way, expecting them to scurry off
into the air as he spoke. But they moved
not.
Filled with awe, he asked them if they
would stay awhile and listen to the Word
of God. He said to them: My brother
and sister birds, you should praise your
Creator and always love him: He gave
2
 Introduction

you feathers for clothes, wings to fly and This chapter was taken from http://www.bbc.co.
all other things that you need. It is uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/
God who made you noble among all crea- animals_1.shtml
tures, making your home in thin, pure
air. Without sowing or reaping, you re-
ceive Gods guidance and protection.
At this the birds began to spread their
wings, stretch their necks and gaze at
Francis, rejoicing and praising God in
a wonderful way according to their na-
ture. Francis then walked right through
the middle of them, turned around and
came back, touching their heads and bod-
ies with his tunic.
Then he gave them his blessing, making
the sign of the cross over them. At that
they flew off and Francis, rejoicing and
giving thanks to God, went on his way.
Later, Francis wondered aloud to his
companions why he had never preached
to birds before. And from that day on,
Francis made it his habit to solicitously
invoke all birds, all animals and reptiles
to praise and love their Creator. And
many times during Francis life there were
remarkable events of Francis speaking to
the animals. There was even a time when
St. Francis quieted a flock of noisy birds
that were interrupting a religious cere-
mony! Much to the wonder of all present,
the birds remained quiet until Francis
sermon was complete.

Source: http://www.americancatholic.
org/features/francis/stories.asp.

Cows are protected by St Brigit

St Columba told his monks to care for a crane

St Brendan was helped in his voyage by sea

monsters

3
Chapter 2

What does the Bible say?

Unless otherwise indicated, all verses taken from the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are
NIV. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by Biblica. given into your hands.

Genesis 9:3 3 Everything that lives and moves will

2.1 Meat eating is ok be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants,
Deuteronomy 14:4-5 4 These are the animals you I now give you everything.
may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, 5 the deer, the
gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex, the an- Psalm 8:5-8 5 You made him a little lower than
telope and the mountain sheep.1 the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and
honor.
6 You made him ruler over the works of your
2.2 God has given us dominion over hands; you put everything under his feet:
all creatures 7 all flocks and herds, and the beasts of the field,
8 the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all
Genesis 1:26 26 Then God said, Let us make that swim the paths of the seas.
man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule
over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over Jeremiah 27:6 6 Now I will hand all your countries
the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the crea- over to my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon;
tures that move along the ground. I will make even the wild animals subject to him.

Genesis 1:28 28 God blessed them and said to Daniel 2:38 38 in your hands he has placed
them, Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the mankind and the beasts of the field and the birds of
earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea the air. Wherever they live, he has made you ruler
and the birds of the air and over every living crea- over them all. You are that head of gold.
ture that moves on the ground.
2.3 Gods relationship with the
Genesis 9:2 2 The fear and dread of you will fall
upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of
world
the air, upon every creature that moves along the As ruler, he protects and cares for his people, just
1
The precise identification of some of the birds and ani- as a shepherd would protect his flock. Although he
mals in this chapter is uncertain. has dominion over all creation, God is not a tyrant.

4
 What does the Bible say?

Psalm 72:8 8 He will rule from sea to sea and from Deuteronomy 22:6-7 6 If you come across a birds
the River to the ends of the earth.
1 Samuel 17:35 35 I went after it, struck it and
rescued the sheep from its mouth. When it turned
on me, I seized it by its hair, struck it and killed it.
nest beside the road, either in a tree or on the
ground, and the mother is sitting on the young or
on the eggs, do not take the mother with the young.
7 You may take the young, but be sure to let the
mother go, so that it may go well with you and you
may have a long life.

2.4 Humans relationship with the Deuteronomy 25:4 4 Do not muzzle an ox while
it is treading out the grain.
world
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commen-
Our relationship with the world and animals should tary:
parallel that of Gods relationship to the world.
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he
Proverbs 12:10 says that it is a righteous man who
treadeth out the corn-In Judea, as in mod-
cares for animals. It is not merely a matter of pref-
ern Syria and Egypt, the larger grains were
erences, it is a moral imperative for us to care for
beaten out by the feet of oxen, which,
animals.
yoked together, day after day trod round
God detests cruelty done to little birds.2 The the wide open spaces which form the
Bible says that we ought to care for animals, to help threshing-floors. The animals were al-
fallen animals, to treat them well when they work lowed freely to pick up a mouthful, when
for us, and to care for the balance of nature. In fact, they chose to do so: a wise as well as hu-
God wants us to honour animal parents in the same mane regulation, introduced by the law of
way we honour our human parents (also see Ecclesiastes Moses (compare 1 Cor 9:9; 1 Tim 5:17,
3:18-20). 18).
Matthew Henrys Concise Commentary:
Proverbs 12:10 10 A righteous man cares for the
25:4 This is a charge to husbandmen. It
needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the
teaches us to make much of the animals
wicked are cruel.
that serve us. But we must learn, not only
to be just, but kind to all who are em-
Exodus 23:5 5 If you see the donkey of someone ployed for the good of our better part, our
who hates you fallen down under its load, do not souls.
leave it there; be sure you help him with it.
The sign that Rebekah was suitable to be the wife
of Isaac was her willingness to draw enough water to
Deuteronomy 5:16 16 Honor your father and feed all of Abrahams servants camels.
your mother, as the LORD your God has com-
manded you, so that you may live long and that it Genesis 24:19-20 19 After she had given him a
may go well with you in the land the LORD your drink, she said, Ill draw water for your camels too (em-
God is giving you. phasis added), until they have finished drinking.
2
Geneva Study Bible on Deuteronomy 22:6-7: If God de-
20 So she quickly emptied her jar into the trough,
tests cruelty done to little birds, how much more to man, made ran back to the well to draw more water, and drew
according to his image? enough for all his camels.

5
 What does the Bible say?

We are asked to protect the weak, and prevent ex- man who did this deserves to die! 6 He must pay
ploitation (Ezekiel 34:11-16). Animals are weak, and for that lamb four times over, because he did such a
we dont merely eat them, we exploit them. When thing and had no pity.
Nathan confronted David, he used a story (2 Samuel
12) to remind him of the proper relationship be- Solomon reminds us that humankinds fate is tied
tween a monarch and his subject. to those of animals, that we are both mortal beings
with the same breath/spirit, and that we all come
Ezekiel 34:11-16 (The Message) 11-16 God, the from dust and return to dust.
Master, says: From now on, I myself am the shep-
herd. Im going looking for them. As shepherds Ecclesiastes 3:18-20 18 I also thought, As for
go after their flocks when they get scattered, Im go- men, God tests them so that they may see that they
ing after my sheep. Ill rescue them from all the are like the animals. 19 Mans fate is like that of
places theyve been scattered to in the storms. Ill the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one
3
bring them back from foreign peoples, gather them dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath ; man
from foreign countries, and bring them back to their has no advantage over the animal (emphasis added).
home country. Ill feed them on the mountains of Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same
Israel, along the streams, among their own people. place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.
Ill lead them into lush pasture so they can roam the
mountain pastures of Israel, graze at leisure, feed in Much material was taken from The status of ani-
the rich pastures on the mountains of Israel. And mals in Biblical and Christian thought: A study in collid-
I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep. I myself ing values by R. Preece and D. Fraser in Society and
will make sure they get plenty of rest. Ill go after Animals 8 245263 (2000) for this chapter.
the lost, Ill collect the strays, Ill doctor the injured,
Ill build up the weak ones and oversee the strong ones so
theyre not exploited (emphasis added).

2 Samuel 12 Nathan Rebukes David

1 The LORD sent Nathan to David. When he
came to him, he said, There were two men in a cer-
tain town, one rich and the other poor. 2 The rich
man had a very large number of sheep and cattle,
3 but the poor man had nothing except one little
ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew
up with him and his children. It shared his food,
drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It
was like a daughter to him. 4 Now a traveler came
to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from tak-
ing one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal
for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he
took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man
and prepared it for the one who had come to him.
5 David burned with anger against the man and
said to Nathan, As surely as the LORD lives, the 3
Ecclesiastes 3:19 Or spirit

6
Chapter 3
Modern and pro-animal thinking
3.1 Modern Christian thinking
about animals
To try to picture the Christ, the one
whom Christians call Agnus Dei, the
Lamb of God, chewing on a leg of lamb
seems incongruous to me. Elizabeth
Farians
41 And while they still did not believe it
because of joy and amazement, he asked
them, Do you have anything here to eat?
42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish,
43 and he took it and ate it in their pres-
ence. Luke 24:41-43
Modern Christian thinking is largely sympathetic to
animals and less willing to accept that there is an un-
bridgeable gap between animals and human beings.
Although most theologians dont accept that an-
imals have rights, they do acknowledge that some
animals display sufficient consciousness and self-
awareness to deserve moral consideration.
The growth of the environmental movement has
also radically changed Christian ideas about the role
human beings play in relation to nature.
Few Christians nowadays think that nature exists
to serve humanity, and there is a general acceptance
that human dominion over nature should be seen
as stewardship and partnership rather than domina-
tion and exploitation.
This has significantly softened Christian attitudes
to animals.
7
3.2 Animal-friendly Christian
thoughts
Here are some of the animal-friendly ideas that mod-
ern Christians use when thinking about animals:
The Bible shows that God made his covenant
with animals as well as human beings
Human and non-human animals have the
same origin in God
St. Francis of Assisi said that animals
had the same source as himself
In Gods ideal world human beings live in har-
mony with animals
The Garden of Eden, in which human
beings lived in peace and harmony with
animals, demonstrates Gods ideal world,
and the state of affairs that human beings
should work towards
The prophet Isaiah describes the King-
dom of Heaven as a place where animals
and human beings live together in peace
(Isaiah 11:6-9)
God has the right to have everything he cre-
ated treated respectfully - wronging animals is
wronging God
God is not indifferent to anything in his cre-
ation
 Modern and pro-animal thinking

The example of a loving creator God should Christians who do this will achieve a far greater
lead human beings to act lovingly towards ani- spiritual appreciation of the worth of creation.
mals Andrew Linzey derives his theology of animal
rights in several ways, but the one most often quoted
Inflicting pain on any living creature is involves looking at creation from Gods point of
incompatible with living in a Christ-like view rather than humanitys:
way
The universe was created for God, not for hu-
Animals are weak compared to us - Christ tells manity
us to be kind to them
Creation exists for God, not for humanity
Jesus told human beings to be kind to the
weak and helpless God loves all creation
In comparison to human beings, animals God put himself into creation, and died for it
are often weak and helpless on the Cross
Christians should therefore show com-
Since God cares for all creation so much, hu-
passion to animals
man beings should care for all creation too
To love those who cannot love you in the same Human beings should care for animals, be-
way is a unique way of acting with generous cause they are part of Gods creation
love.
Doing wrong to an animal is wronging God by
If you love them that love you, what re- violating his right to have the whole of his cre-
ward have you? ation respected.
It is a great good to take responsibility for the
This chapter was taken from http://www.bbc.
welfare of others, including animals
co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/
animals_1.shtml
3.3 Andrew Linzey
Since an animals natural life is a gift from
God, it follows that Gods right is violated
when the natural life of his creatures is
perverted. Andrew Linzey, Christianity
and the Rights of Animals

The leading modern Christian writer on animal

rights is Andrew Linzey.
Linzey believes Gods love is intended not just
for human beings but for all creatures.
Linzey teaches that Christians should treat every
sentient animal according to its intrinsic God-given
worth, and not according to its usefulness to human
beings.

8
Chapter 4

What the churches say

4.1 Assemblies of God (i) the divine Spirit is sacramentally

present in creation, which is therefore
In spite of these future events, we feel Christians to be treated with reverence, respect and
must act responsibly in their use of Gods earth as gratitude
we rightly harvest its resources. As stated in Genesis
(ii) human beings are both co-partners
1:27-30, we believe God has given mankind alone
with the rest of creation and living bridges
complete dominion (authority) over the earths re-
between heaven and earth, with respon-
sources. These resources include the land, the wa-
sibility to make personal and corporate
ter, the vegetation, and the earths minerals; as well
sacrifices for the common good of all cre-
as the animals, fish, and fowl. Like the earth, we ac-
ation
knowledge these to be gifts from God to mankind;
and as gifts they are to be appreciated and cherished. (iii) the redemptive purpose of God in Je-
As Christians we believe dominion requires good sus Christ extends to the whole of cre-
stewardship of our temporary homeearth. ation. Lambeth Conference, 1998
Lambeth Conference, 1998
Source: http://www.ag.org/top/Beliefs/
contempissues_02_environment.cfm. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/
christianity/christianethics/animals_1.shtml.
4.2 Anglican
4.3 Episcopal Church
This resolution from the 1998 Lambeth Conference
of the Anglican Church is typical of contemporary Resolved, That the 74th General Convention recog-
Christian thinking about animals: nize that responsible care of animals falls within the
stewardship of creation; and be it further
This conference: Resolved, That The Episcopal Church encourage
(a) reaffirms the biblical vision of cre- its members to ensure that husbandry methods for
ation according to which: Creation is captive and domestic animals would prohibit suffer-
a web of inter-dependent relationships ing in such conditions as puppy mills, and factory-
bound together in the covenant which farms; and be it further
God the Holy Trinity has established with Resolved, That The Episcopal Churchs Peace and
the whole earth and every living being. Justice Office identify existing guidelines to educate

9
 What the churches say
its members to adhere to ethical standards in the
care and treatment of animals; and be it further
Resolved, That The Episcopal Church, through
its Office of Government Relations, identify and ad-
vocate for legislation protecting animals and effec-
tive enforcement measures.
Source: General Convention, Journal of the Gen-
eral Convention of...The Episcopal Church, Min-
neapolis, 2003 (New York: General Convention,
2004), p. 253.
4.4 Evangelical Lutheran Church in
America
As members of this church, we commit ourselves to
personal life styles that contribute to the health of
the environment. Many organizations provide mate-
rials to guide us in examining possibilities and mak-
ing changes appropriate to our circumstances.
We challenge ourselves, particularly the economi-
cally secure, to tithe environmentally. Tithers would
reduce their burden on the earths bounty by pro-
ducing ten percent less in waste, consuming ten per-
cent less in non-renewable resources, and contribut-
ing the savings to earthcare efforts. Environmental
tithing also entails giving time to learn about envi-
ronmental problems and to work with others toward
solutions.
Source: This social statement was adopted by a
more than two-thirds majority vote as a social state-
ment of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Amer-
ica by the third Churchwide Assembly on August
28, 1993, at Kansas City, Missouri. See http://www.
elca.org/socialstatements/environment/.
4.5 Methodist
Environmental Stewardship, 1984
A Theology of Stewardship and the Environment
All creation is under the authority of God and all
creation is interdependent. Our covenant with God
requires us to be stewards, protectors, and defenders
10
of all creation. The use of natural resources is a uni-
versal concern and responsibility of all as reflected
in Psalm 24:1: The earth is the Lords and the full-
ness thereof.
In the Bible, a steward is one given responsibil-
ity for what belongs to another. The Greek word
we translate as steward is oikonomos, one who cares
for the household or acts as its trustee. The word
oikos, meaning household, is used to describe the
world as Gods household. Christians, then, are
to be stewards of the whole household (creation) of
God. Oikonomia, stewardship, is also the root of
our word economics. Oikos, moreover, is the root
of our modern word, ecology. Thus in a broad
sense, stewardship, economics, and ecology are, and
should be, related.
The Old Testament relates these concepts in the
vision of shalom. Often translated peace, the
broader meaning of shalom is wholeness. In the
Old Testament, shalom is used to characterize the
wholeness of a faithful life lived in relationship to
God. Shalom is best understood when we experi-
ence wholeness and harmony as human beings with
God, with others, and with creation itself. The task
of the steward is to seek shalom.
Stewards of Gods Creation. The concept of stew-
ardship is first introduced in the creation story. In
Genesis 1:26, the Bible affirms that every person is
created in Gods image. But this gift brings with it
a unique responsibility. Being created in Gods im-
age brings with it the responsibility to care for Gods
creation. God chose to give human beings a divine
image not so we would exploit creation to our own
ends, but so we would be recognized as stewards of
God. To have dominion over the earth is a trustee-
ship, a sign that God cares for creation and has en-
trusted it to our stewardship. Our stewardship of all
the worlds resources is always accountable to God
who loves the whole of creation and who desires that
it exist in shalom. The intention of creation was that
all should experience shalom, to know the goodness
of creation. In the Old Testament, fullness of life
 What the churches say

means having enough, sufficient, to experience the 4.6 Presbyterian Church (USA)
goodness of creation. By contrast, our age has come
to define fullness of life as more than enough. The That the 218th General Assembly (2008) [a]pprove
desire of many for excess begins to deny enough for the study and recommendations, entitled, The
others, and shalom is broken. That all should par- Power to Change: U.S. Energy Policy and Global
ticipate in creations goodness is a fundamental of Warming [to]
stewardship. e. Purchase sustainably grown food and other
Another theme of shalom is that in creation we products from local producers in order to reduce
are all related. Humans are not self-sufficient. We the energy associated with producing, and shipping
need God, others, nature. The story of the garden goods.
(Genesis 2) attempts to picture the complete and f. Reduce consumption of meat because the pro-
harmonious interrelatedness of all creation. There duction of grain fed to most livestock is fossil fuel-
is shalom only when we recognize that interrelated- intensive and their waste emits methane, which is a
ness and care for the whole. When we violate the potent greenhouse gas.
rules of the garden, we are dismissed. In ecological
terms, when we violate the principles of ecology, we Source: http://www.pc-biz.org/Explorer.aspx?id=
suffer environmental damage. 1537&promoID=10.
As the story of the garden shows, Gods intention
of shalom was not carried out. Sin intervened, and
the shalom was broken. But God offered a way to 4.7 Roman Catholic
restore shalom - redemption. And as Gods stew-
ards we have a role in that redemption. Steward- The Papal Encyclical Evangelium Vitae recognises
ship, then, is to become involved wherever whole- that animals have both an intrinsic value and a place
ness is lacking and to work in harmony with Gods in Gods kingdom.
saving activity to reconcile, to reunite, to heal, to The Roman Catholic Ethic of Life, if fully ac-
make whole. cepted, would lead Christians to avoid anything that
brings unnecessary suffering or death to animals.
Stewardship has to do with how we bring all of
The official position of the Church is contained
the resources at our disposal into efficient use in
in a number of sections of the Churchs official
our participation in the saving activity of God. En-
Catechism (the paragraphing within each section is
vironmental stewardship is one part of our work as
ours):
Gods stewards. As stewards of the natural environ-
ment we are called to preserve and restore the air,
water, and land on which life depends. Moreover, 373 In Gods plan man and woman have the voca-
we are called to see that all life has a sufficient share tion of subduing the earth as stewards of God.
of the resources of nature. With new hope rooted This sovereignty is not to be an arbitrary and de-
in Christ and with more obedient living as stewards structive domination. God calls man and woman,
of the earth, we can participate in Gods healing of made in the image of the Creator who loves ev-
creation. erything that exists, to share in his providence to-
ward other creatures; hence their responsibility for
the world God has entrusted to them.
Source: Book of Resolutions of the United
Methodist Church 2000 (The United Methodist 2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect
Publishing House, Nashville, Tennessee, Copyright) for the integrity of creation.

11
 What the churches say

Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/

by nature destined for the common good of past, christianity/christianethics/animals_1.shtml.
present, and future humanity.
Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal re-
sources of the universe cannot be divorced from re-
spect for moral imperatives.
Mans dominion over inanimate and other living
beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is
limited by concern for the quality of life of his neigh-
bour, including generations to come; it requires a
religious respect for the integrity of creation.

2416 Animals are Gods creatures. He surrounds

them with his providential care. By their mere exis-
tence they bless him and give him glory.
Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall
the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of
Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of

those whom he created in his own image. Hence it
is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing.
They may be domesticated to help man in his work
and leisure.
Medical and scientific experimentation on ani-
mals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains
within reasonable limits and contributes to caring
for or saving human lives.

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause ani-

mals to suffer or die needlessly.
It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them
that should as a priority go to the relief of human
misery.
One can love animals; one should not direct to
them the affection due only to persons.

Criticisms
Some writers have criticised the statements above
for being so firmly centred on human beings. Caus-
ing animals to suffer needlessly, for example, is de-
scribed in 2418 as being contrary to human dig-
nity, rather than as being a wrong towards animals.

12
Chapter 5

CS Lewiss Animal Theology

5.1 Animals 5.2 Cruel men

Lewis condemned vivisection absolutely, and said so
We may find it difficult to formulate a hu-
in a 1947 essay. He deplored the popular arguments
man right of tormenting beasts in terms
in favour of experiments on animals, calling them
which would not equally imply an angelic
easy speeches that comfort cruel men. He pointed
right of tormenting men. C.S. Lewis,
out that the same ideas could be used to justify ex-
Vivisection
periments on humans, and explicitly drew a compar-
ison with the Nazis.
This would be emotive language at any time, but
C.S. Lewis loved animals, as his earliest writings it was shocking in context: this was 1947, two to
show. He felt the question of animal suffering was three years after the liberation of the concentration
a significant problem for Christianity: so important camps.
that he dedicated a chapter of The Problem of Pain to
it. The Christian defender is very apt to
Lewis believed that humans were absolutely sep- say that we are entitled to do anything
arate from animals, but he considered animals con- we please to animals because they have
scious - or some animals to be more conscious than no souls. But what does this mean? If
others. It would be unhelpful to group apes with it means that animals have no conscious-
earthworms: Clearly in some ways the ape and man ness, then how is this known? They cer-
are much more like each other than either is like the tainly behave as if they had, or at least the
worm. There was a difference in complexity from higher animals do. I myself am inclined to
lower to higher animals. think that far fewer animals than is sup-
At some point sentience almost certainly posed have what we should recognize as
comes in, for the higher animals have nervous sys- consciousness. But that is only an opin-
tems very like our own. (The Problem of Pain) This ion. Unless we know on other grounds
was by no means an accepted view. It would have that vivisection is right we must not take
been a potentially expensive one, because vivisection the moral risk of tormenting them on a
- damaging or fatal experiments on animals - and mere opinion.
other exploitative uses of animals were common- On the other hand, the statement that
place, and acknowledging animal sentience would they have no souls may mean that they
mean admitting that these practices were cruel. have no moral responsibilities and are not

13
 CS Lewiss Animal Theology
immortal. But the absence of soul in
that sense makes the infliction of pain
upon them not easier but harder to jus-
tify, for it means that animals cannot de-
serve pain, nor profit morally by the dis-
cipline of pain, nor be recompensed by
happiness in another life for suffering in
this. Soullessness, in so far as it is rele-
vant to the question at all, is an argument
against vivisection. C.S. Lewis, Vivisec-
tion
Lewiss love for animals shines through all his writ-
ings, and it made him especially concerned with
finding a meaning behind animal suffering.
5.3 Nature red
Lewiss concern did not end at animal pain that was
inflicted by humans. He saw the whole of nature
as cruel, with animals killing and eating others to
survive. His theology explained human pain by way
of humanitys fallen state, but animals had commit-
ted no sin. Lewis reasoned that humanitys fall had
brought animals down to a fallen state too.
In examining the problem of wild animals pain,
Lewiss thinking involved a hierarchy: from plants,
the lowest form of life, to animals, humans, angels
and finally God. Lewis saw conflict in the world of
plants, where the competition for light and nutri-
ents caused some plants to succeed and some to die,
but he didnt think this was cruel: plants are not
sentient, so they dont feel pain or suffering.
The idea of animals preying on other animals
presents more of a problem, at least where the prey
is sentient. Lewis, along with other theologians, felt
that this could not be the natural way of things and
that an evil power had altered nature in order to
cause more misery. (As The Screwtape Letters shows,
Lewis believed in Satan.)
If it offends less, you may say that the life-
force is corrupted, where I say that living
creatures were corrupted by an evil angelic
being. We mean the same thing: but I
find it easier to believe in a myth of gods
and demons than in one of hypostatised
abstract nouns. C.S. Lewis, The Prob-
lem of Pain
In The Problem of Pain Lewis presented an imag-
ined glimpse of un-fallen humanity, as he had pre-
viously done in the fictional settings of Out of the
Silent Planet and Perelandra. He believed humans had
fallen to a lower state, so that they were much more
like animals. Taking this idea further, he ventured
the idea that animals had fallen back to behaviour
proper to vegetables - that the behaviour of preying
on each other was something natural to plants and
not to animals.
Despite these ideas, Lewis does not seem to have
believed that humans should be vegetarian: indeed,
he was known to poke fun at fashionable vegetari-
ans. Vegetarianism was not widespread in the 1950s,
nor was the knowledge that a vegetarian diet can be
healthy, so Lewiss attitude is hardly surprising.
5.4 Pet heaven
Lewis, very unusually for the time, thought that
there ought to be some provision in Christianity for
resurrection or heaven for animals.
Resurrection would be meaningless for some an-
imals: If the life of a newt is merely a succession
of sensations, what should we mean by saying that
God may recall to life the newt that died to-day? It
would not recognise itself as the same newt. If the
newt was not aware enough to be made miserable or
happy by pain or pleasure, there would be no way to
reward it or compensate it for its life on earth.
Domestic animals, though, obviously had some-
thing like a personality. Lewis thought that when
humans tamed animals, in accordance with their
God-given dominion over them, the animals became
more themselves.
To Lewis the practice of taming animals, and
making them more humanlike, was an obvious par-
allel to Gods way of making believing Christians
14
 CS Lewiss Animal Theology

more Christlike. He suggested that domestic an-

imals might somehow achieve immortality in the
context of their masters immortality. It is a com-
forting thought for anyone who has hoped to see
their beloved pet in heaven, though not much use
to a dog belonging to a non-Christian.
The talking animals of Narnia are a different case.
They have humanlike personalities and free will of
their own and seem to be responsible for their own
actions.
This chapter was taken from http://www.bbc.co.
uk/religion/religions/christianity/people/cslewis_1.
shtml#section_14.

15
Chapter 6

The issues

This chapter is taken entirely from material at http: Calves are dehorned, extra teats are removed
//www.sustainabletable.org/ and in Eating Animals by (cows have four teats, any more than that are con-
Jonathan Safran Foer. Get the book and visit the sidered extra), and they are usually fed a milk re-
website for more information. placer. This practice can lead to the spread of BSE
(bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or Mad Cow
Disease) which is transmitted when cows are fed
6.1 Animal welfare byproducts of other infected animals and can cause
death in the animal it infects and/or significant
The basic structure of industrial farms is at odds health risks to anyone who eats the meat of that an-
with the well-being of the animals they raise. Con- imal. See www.sustainabletable.org/issues/madcow
fining animals indoors as closely together as possi- for more information. Calves also have about two-
ble, rather than letting them graze on open land, thirds of their tails removed a process called tail
exposes them to high levels of toxins from decom- docking, which is done without anesthetic and is
posing manure. To counteract the disease inherent meant to keep the cow from developing infections
in such conditions, animals are given constant low caused by constant exposure to manure something
daily doses of antibiotics which are contributing to that has yet to be proven effective. With so many cat-
problems with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Though tle in close quarters, the animals often suffer diseases
they are also exposed to pesticides, other unhealthy of the feet and udder from standing in their own
additives, and types of food they wouldnt normally manure and being exposed to harsh weather con-
eat. The animals can also be bred and given hor- ditions. Close living conditions, excess hormones,
mones only to increase production. and a diet of corn (that cows do not digest well)
rather than grass provide a perfect environment for
disease to flourish.
Cows
Once beef cows have grown to an adequate size
Calves born into dairy factories are usually removed and dairy cows are no longer producing milk at an
from their dam, or mother, after about 12 hours. acceptable rate, they are taken to be slaughtered.
Male calves that are to be raised for veal are castrated While slaughterhouses are required to meet USDA
and sent to feedlots to be fattened. In rare cases standards for cleanliness and humane treatment,
they are raised for breeding. The heifers, or young some process up to 400 cattle per hour, a speed
female cows, are raised as replacement heifers on at which it is nearly impossible to guarantee each
the same farm or sold to another dairy farm where is slaughtered within the regulation according to
they would replace aging members of the herd. Michigan State University. In addition, slaughter-

16
 The issues
houses have been reported as regularly failing to
completely stun animals before the process begins,
resulting in cows being hung and bled while they
are still conscious.
At a typical slaughter facility, cattle are led
through a chute into a knocking box usually a large
cylindrical hold through which the head pokes. The
stun operator, or knocker, presses a large pneu-
matic gun between the cows eyes. A steel bolt
shoots into the cows skull and then retracts back
into the gun, usually rendering the animal uncon-
scious or causing death. Sometimes the bolt only
dazes the animal, which either remains conscious or
later wakes up as it is being processed. The effec-
tiveness of the knocking gun depends on its manu-
facture and maintenance, and the skill of its appli-
cation a small hose leak or firing the gun before
pressure sufficiently builds up again can reduce the
force with which the bolt is released and leave ani-
mals grotesquely punctured but painfully conscious.
The effectiveness of knocking is also reduced be-
cause some plant managers believe that animals can
become too dead and therefore, because their
hearts are not pumping, bleed out too slowly or in-
sufficiently. (Its important for plants to have a
quick bleed-out time for basic efficiency and because
blood left in the meat promotes bacterial growth and
reduces shelf life.) As a result, some plants deliber-
ately choose less-effective knocking methods. The
side effect is that a higher percentage of animals re-
quire multiple knocks, remain conscious, or wake
up in processing.
No jokes here, and no turning away. Lets say
what we mean: animals are bled, skinned, and dis-
membered while conscious. It happens all the time,
and the industry and the government know it. Sev-
eral plants cited for bleeding or skinning or dismem-
bering live animals have defended their actions as
common in the industry and asked, perhaps rightly,
why they were being singled out.
In twelve seconds or less, the knocked cow un-
conscious, semiconscious, fully conscious, or dead
moves down the line to arrive at the shackler,
who attaches a chain around one of the hind legs
17
and hoists the animal into the air.
From the shackler, the animal, now dangling
from a leg, is mechanically moved to a sticker,
who cuts the carotid arteries and a jugular vein in
the neck. The animal is again mechanically moved
to a bleed rail and drained of blood for several
minutes. A cow has in the neighborhood of five
and a half gallons of blood, so this takes some time.
Cutting the flow of blood to the animals brain will
kill it, but not instantly (which is why the animals
are supposed to be unconscious). If the animal is
partially conscious or improperly cut, this can re-
strict the flow of blood, prolonging consciousness
further. Theyd be blinking and stretching their
necks from side to side, looking around, really fran-
tic, explained one line worker.
The cow should now be carcass, which will move
along the line to a head-skinner, which is exactly
what it sounds like a stop where the skin is peeled
off the head of the animal. The percentage of cattle
still conscious at this stage is low but not zero. At
some plants it is a regular problem so much so
that there are informal standards about how to deal
with these animals. Explains a worker familiar with
such practices, A lot of times the skinner finds out
an animal is still conscious when he slices the side of
its head and it starts kicking wildly. If that happens,
or if a cow is already kicking when it arrives at their
station, the skinners shove a knife into the back of
its head to cut the spinal cord.
This practice, it turns out, immobilizes the animal
but does not render it insensible. I cant tell you how
many animals this happens to, as no one is allowed
to properly investigate. We only know that it is an
inevitable by-product of the present slaughter system
and that it will continue to happen.
After the head-skinner, the carcass (or cow) pro-
ceeds to the leggers, who cut off the lower portions
of the animals legs. As far as the ones that come
back to life, says a line worker, it looks like theyre
trying to climb the walls. And when they get to
the leggers, well, the leggers dont want to wait to
start working on the cow until somebody gets down
there to reknock it. So they just cut off the bottom
 The issues
part of the leg with the clippers. When they do that,
the cattle go wild, just kicking in every direction.
The animal then proceeds to be completely
skinned, eviscerated, and cut in half, at which point
it finally looks like the stereotyped image of beef
hanging in freezers with eerie stillness.
Pigs
On a factory farm, once impregnated, a sow, or
mother pig is placed into a small crate, completely
limiting her movement.
More serious and pervasive is the suffering caused
by boredom and isolation and the thwarting of
the sows powerful urge to prepare for her com-
ing piglets. In nature, she would spend much of
her time before giving birth foraging and ultimately
would build a nest of grass, leaves, or straw. To
avoid excessive weight gain and to further reduce
feed costs, the crated sow will be feed restricted and
often hungry. Pigs also have an inborn tendency to
use separate areas for sleeping and defecating that
is totally thwarted in confinement. The pregnant
pigs, like most all pigs in industrial systems, must
lie or step in their excrement to force it through the
slatted floor. The industry defends such confine-
ment by arguing that it helps control and manage
animals better, but the system makes good welfare
practices more difficult because lame and diseased
animals are almost impossible to identify when no
animals are allowed to move.
Many pigs go insane due to the confinement and
obsessively chew on their cage bars, incessantly press
their water bottles, or drink urine. Others exhibit
mourning behaviors that animal scientists describe
as learned helplessness.
Before giving birth the sows are transferred to a
slightly larger crate that will allow her piglets to feed.
Once the piglets are weaned, they are separated
from their mother and confined in pens with con-
crete floors. Rooting, or digging in the dirt and
straw, is a natural activity for pigs; and when re-
stricted from this activity, they show visible signs of
stress and aggression, such as tail biting. The con-
18
crete floors have also been linked to skeletal defor-
mities of the feet, and the poorly ventilated con-
fines result in frequent lung damage and pneumo-
nia. The stress and mistreatment pigs experience
during transport, in combination with illness and
injury arising from poor housing conditions, cause
many to die on the way to the slaughterhouse.
As in any kind of factory, uniformity is essential.
Piglets that dont grow fast enough the runts are
a drain on resources and so have no place on the
farm. Picked up by their hind legs, they are swung
and then bashed headfirst onto the concrete floor.
This common practice is called thumping. Weve
thumped as many as 120 in one day, said a worker
from a Missouri farm.
We just swing them, thump them, then
toss them aside. Then, after youve
thumped ten, twelve, fourteen of them,
you take them to the chute room and
stack them for the dead truck. And
if you go in the chute room and some
are still alive, then you have to thump
them all over again. Thereve been times
Ive walked in that room and theyd be
running around with an eyeball hanging
down the side of their face, just bleeding
like crazy, or their jaw would be broken.
Chickens
Broilers (chickens raised for meat) are bred to grow
muscle at an unnaturally fast rate that is often not
matched by bone growth and can cause serious de-
formities, leaving the chickens unable to walk. Lay-
ers (chickens used to lay eggs) can essentially be
starved for up to two weeks to induce molting and
increased egg production once the feeding cycle is
resumed. About 98 percent of chickens used in
egg production live in cages with a base about the
size of a standard piece of printing paper. Broiler
chickens are often reared at similarly high densities
in pens with concrete slatted floors or occasionally
litter (straw) covered concrete floors. Due to these
 The issues
stressful conditions, chickens often become aggres-
sive and can peck each other to death. To prevent
this, it is common practice to sear off about half
their beaks, causing severe and lasting pain.
Male layers
What happens to all of the male offspring of layers? If
man hasnt designed them for meat, and nature
clearly hasnt designed them to lay eggs, what func-
tion do they serve?
They serve no function. Which is why all male lay-
ers half of all the layer chickens born in the United
States, more than 250 million chicks a year are de-
stroyed.
Destroyed? That seems like a word worth knowing
more about.
Most male layers are destroyed by being sucked
through a series of pipes onto an electrified plate.
Other layer chicks are destroyed in other ways, and
its impossible to call those animals more or less
fortunate. Some are tossed into large plastic con-
tainers. The weak are trampled to the bottom,
where they suffocate slowly. The strong suffocate
slowly at the top. Others are sent fully conscious
through macerators (picture a wood chipper filled
with chicks).
Fish
Many other species die
Perhaps the quintessential example of bullshit, by-
catch refers to sea creatures caught by accident ex-
cept not really by accident, since bycatch has been
consciously built into contemporary fishing meth-
ods. Modern fishing tends to involve much technol-
ogy and few fishers. This combination leads to mas-
sive catches with massive amounts of bycatch. Take
shrimp, for example. The average shrimp-trawling
operation throws 80 to 90 percent of the sea animals
it captures overboard, dead or dying, as bycatch. (En-
dangered species amount to much of this bycatch.)
Shrimp account for only 2 percent of global seafood
19
by weight, but shrimp trawling accounts for 33 per-
cent of global bycatch. We tend not to think about
this because we tend not to know about it. What
if there were labeling on our food letting us know
how many animals were killed to bring our desired
animal to our plate? So, with trawled shrimp from
Indonesia, for example, the label might read: 26
pounds of other sea animals were killed and tossed
back into the ocean for every 1 pound of this shrimp.
Imagine being served a plate of sushi. But this
plate also holds all of the animals that were killed
for your serving of sushi. The plate might have to
be five feet across.
Cruelty
Longlines today can reach seventy-five miles thats
enough line to cross the English Channel more than
three times. An estimated 27 million hooks are
deployed every day. And longlines dont kill just
their target species, but 145 others as well. One
study found that roughly 4.5 million sea animals are
killed as bycatch in longline fishing every year, in-
cluding roughly 3.3 million sharks, 1 million mar-
lins, 60,000 sea turtles, 75,000 albatross, and 20,000
dolphins and whales.
Trawling and longline fishing arent only ecolog-
ically worrisome; they are also cruel. In trawlers,
hundreds of different species are crushed together,
gashed on corals, bashed on rocks for hours and
then hauled from the water, causing painful decom-
pression (the decompression sometimes causes the
animals eyes to pop out or their internal organs
to come out their mouths). On longlines, too, the
deaths animals face are generally slow. Some are sim-
ply held there and die only when removed from the
lines. Some die from the injury caused by the hook
in their mouths or by trying to get away. Some are
unable to escape attack by predators.
Purse seines, the final fishing method Im going
to discuss, are the main technology used for catching
Americas most popular seafood, tuna. A net wall is
deployed around a school of target fish, and once the
school is encircled, the bottom of the net is pulled to-
 The issues

gether as if the fishers were tugging on a giant purse
string. The trapped target fish and any other crea-
tures in the vicinity are then winched together and
hauled onto the deck. Fish tangled in the net may
be slowly pulled apart in the process. Most of these
sea animals, though, die on the ship itself, where
they will slowly suffocate or have their gills cut while
conscious. In some cases, the fish are tossed onto
ice, which can actually prolong their deaths. Ac-
cording to a recent study published in Applied Ani-
mal Behaviour Science, fish die slowly and painfully
over a period as long as fourteen minutes after being
tossed fully conscious into an ice slurry (something
that happens to both wild-caught and farmed fish).
Does all this matter matter enough that we
should change what we eat? Maybe all we need is
better labels so we can make wiser decisions about
the fish and fish products we buy? What conclusion
would most selective omnivores reach if attached to
each salmon they ate was a label noting that 2.5-foot-
long farmed salmon spend their lives in the equiva-
lent of a bathtub of water and that the animals eyes
bleed from the intensity of the pollution? What if
the label mentioned the explosions of parasite popu-
lations, increases in diseases, degraded genetics, and
new antibiotic-resistant diseases that result from fish
farming?
6.2 Climate change
According to the United Nations Food and Agri-
culture Organization, livestock production alone
contributes 18 percent of the global warming ef-
fectmore than the entire transportation sector.
The global food system is particularly damaging to
the climate because it is responsible for significant
emissions of methane and nitrous oxide, which have On the Land
respectively 23 and 296 times greater global warming
effects than carbon dioxide.
On the Farm
Industrial farms rely heavily on fossil fuels and petro- through photosynthesis. The biggest threat to these
chemicals to power machinery, artificially fertilize lands is the expansion of pasture for cattle, feed
soil, protect against pests, and stave off weeds. With
one-third of the worlds cereal harvest and 90 per-
cent of its soy harvest being raised for animal feed,
the energy required to grow those crops is a major
factor in these on-farm emissions. In the United
States, half of all synthetic fertilizer is used for an-
imal feed crops.
The Livestock Liability
Livestock are a major source of methane emissions.
Ruminant livestock (those with complex digestive
systems that regurgitate and re-chew their food), in-
cluding cattle, buffalo, sheep, and goats, are the
main agricultural sources of methane. Ruminants
digest through microbial, or enteric fermentation,
which produces methane that is released by the an-
imals through belching and, to a lesser degree via
their, er, tailpipes. While this enables ruminants
to digest fibrous grasses, it also accounts for one-
quarter of all heat-trapping emissions from the live-
stock sector.
Waste is another problem. In sustainable farm-
ing systems, there is no such thing as waste: manure
is used as fertilizer. But in confined animal feed-
ing operations (CAFOs) waste is stored in huge ma-
nure lagoons that emit methane and nitrous ox-
ide. Due to its vast network of factory farms, the
United States scores at the top of the world list for
methane emissions from manure.
All told, the sheer number of animals being raised
for meat today accounts for nearly 20 percent of
greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. In 1965, 10
billion livestock animals were slaughtered for meat;
today, that number is 55 billion.
Rainforests and wetlands play a vital role in climate
stability because they sequester carbon, absorbing
and storing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in
the soils and plants, while also replenishing oxygen

20
 The issues
crops for livestock, and oil palm for processed foods
and biofuels. Most of these land use changes are
concentrated in just a handful of countries, notably
Brazil and Malaysia.
6.3 Animal waste
The most successful legal battles against hog factory
farms in the United States have focused on their
incredible potential to pollute. (When people talk
about the environmental toll of animal agriculture,
this is a large part of what theyre talking about.)
The problem is quite simple: massive amounts of
shit. So much shit, so poorly managed, that it seeps
into rivers, lakes, and oceans killing wildlife and
polluting air, water, and land in ways devastating to
human health.
Today a typical pig factory farm will produce 7.2
million pounds of manure annually, a typical broiler
facility will produce 6.6 million pounds, and a typi-
cal cattle feedlot 344 million pounds. The General
Accounting Office (GAO) reports that individual
farms can generate more raw waste than the popula-
tions of some U.S. cities. All told, farmed animals
in the United States produce 130 times as much
waste as the human population roughly 87,000
pounds of shit per second. The polluting strength
of this shit is 160 times greater than raw municipal
sewage. And yet there is almost no waste-treatment
infrastructure for farmed animals no toilets, ob-
viously, but also no sewage pipes, no one hauling
it away for treatment, and almost no federal guide-
lines regulating what happens to it. (The GAO re-
ports that no federal agency even collects reliable
data on factory farms or so much as knows the num-
ber of permitted factory farms nationally and there-
fore cannot effectively regulate them.)
Imagine it. Imagine if, instead of the mas-
sive waste-treatment infrastructure that we take for
granted in modern cities, every man, woman, and
child in every city and town in all of California and
all of Texas crapped and pissed in a huge open-air
pit for a day. Now imagine that they dont do this
21
for just a day, but all year round, in perpetuity. To
comprehend the effects of releasing this amount of
shit into the environment, we need to know some-
thing of whats in it. In his tremendous Rolling
Stone article on Smithfield, Boss Hog, Jeff Tietz
compiled a useful list of shit typically found in the
shit of factory-farmed hogs: ammonia, methane,
hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, cyanide, phos-
phorus, nitrates and heavy metals. In addition, the
waste nurses more than 100 microbial pathogens
that can make humans sick, including salmonella,
cryptosporidium, streptococci and girardia (thus
children raised on the grounds of a typical hog fac-
tory farm have asthma rates exceeding 50 percent
and children raised near factory farms are twice as
likely to develop asthma). And not all of the shit
is shit, exactly its whatever will fit through the
slatted floors of the factory farm buildings. This
includes but is not limited to: stillborn piglets, af-
terbirths, dead piglets, vomit, blood, urine, antibi-
otic syringes, broken bottles of insecticide, hair, pus,
even body parts.
A worker in Michigan, repairing one of
the lagoons, was overcome by the smell
and fell in. His 15-year-old nephew
dived in to save him but was overcome,
the workers cousin went in to save the
teenager but was overcome, the workers
older brother dived in to save them but
was overcome, and then the workers fa-
ther dived in. They all died in pig shit.