22 POINT-OF-VIEW Veterinary Times

Animal rights: property vs protection

PREVIOUS articles in this Things that are merely property
series have highlighted issues FRANK BUSCH can have no legal rights. The best Figures 1a
(left) and
regarding the moral status and PhD, MRCVS that “property” can hope for is
1b. Foie gras
the (moral) rights of animals, that those who own and use it production:
as well as how society has will establish rules to give it some the right not
viewed its relationship with degree of protection, which is to be treated
animals through the expression generally done to protect the as property?
of thinkers and philosophers “value” of the owner’s property.
throughout recent time. kjhuob In the case of animals, such
It was concluded that, ulti- protection was to be granted in
mately, human morality cannot various pieces of legislation that
be relied upon when it comes to were supposed to limit abuse,
protecting animals’ interests, as but failed to do so.
human interest will always domi- The property status of animals
nate and, therefore, prevail over considers various views on animal protection, renders meaningless any attempt
the interests of non-humans. exploitation, legal rights and welfare legislation to balance human and animal
This article will focus on the interests, and the result is that
dichotomy between the general “do not accept the property sta- not allow for any other action to the level of care required by
protection of animals in our soci- tus of animals nor the wisdom of be taken – a commitment that animal welfare laws rarely rises
ety through various welfare laws subjecting them to human domi- our society is not yet ready for. above the level that a rational the underlying problems33. He ment is a case in point. It does
and regulations, and the exploi- nation”. He continues: “Animal Therefore, the stance of the property owner would provide argues: “The welfarist ‘successes’ nothing to address the underly-
tation of animals on an industrial experimentation in laboratories, advocacy movement is that ani- to use the animal in an eco- of that time period have been ing problem of confinement
scale, which society has, qui- even if helpful to humans, is mals can only be helped by pur- nomically efficient way. Animal meaningless, both in terms of agriculture. And, although close-
etly, come to accept. It will also unjustified. Factory farming, and suing animal welfare regulation welfare laws generally do not shifting the property paradigm confinement stalls for breeding
examine the status of animals as [...] the meat industry itself, is (new welfarist position). New require that we accord any value and in terms of reducing the suf- sows have been banned in the
property and proposal to afford immoral [...] Even the concept welfarists live in the hope that to animal interests unless to fering of animals now. Indeed, UK since 1999, an EU-wide ban
legal rights to non-humans. of pet ownership is suspect regulation will eventually lead to do so will be beneficial for us. I think that the welfarist move- on sow stalls is only to come fully
under the rights framework9. abolition, and hope to achieve The property status of animals ment has actually made the pub- into force by 2013.
Not moving forward: Acceptance of this rights position this via incremental changes that militates against the recognition lic feel more comfortable about Although one could argue
the animal rights debate requires a rejection of [...] law as ought to lead to better welfare that animals have inherent value animal exploitation”34. that delays are inevitable when
To many, the very idea of “animal it currently stands”10. and, ultimately, to abolition. and have interests that should Francione is equally critical of the interests of several member
rights” – a term and subject that Lubinski identifies three com- Francione describes the animal be respected, irrespective of any the World Trade Organisation’s states have to be taken into
are both usually poorly under- peting philosophies within the rights movement as a confused human benefit27. (WTO) trade rules, which, as account, the UK itself is delaying
stood and debated – seems animal rights debate: movement “when it allows the Animal welfare legislation28 Peter Stevenson has highlighted, improvements unnecessarily (for
implausible1 and is often disputed  the traditional animal welfare so-called father of animal rights, aims to prevent “unnecessary” have had major detrimental example, regarding the issue of
or rejected altogether2. advocates (welfarists); Peter Singer, to indirectly pro- or “wilful” harm to animals. But, impact on meas- farrowing crates).
Gary L Francione3, an Ameri-  the animal rights advocates mote animal exploitation by con- as some authors have argued, ures designed to “To the law, religion The UK position
can law professor, lawyer and (abolitionists); and doning meat consumption”22. whether these rules are infringed protect animals35. is ambivalent 38
author of several influential  the so-called “new welfarists” is always looked at by balancing The organisation
and philosophy, and, therefore, it
books dealing particularly with (see Table 1). Property paradigm and the rights of humans against the was formed in animals are chattels could be argued,
the abolitionist idea4, avoids the “New welfarism”, a term animal welfare’s failings interests of animals that have no 1995 with the aim whose destiny is “welfarist” in
animal rights debate entirely coined by Francione11, repre- Historically, animals have been such rights29. Inevitably, there- of making inter- directed by humans. nature. Only until
when he argues for just one sents a compromise between the treated merely as the property fore, the balance will always national trade a As property, they very recently, UK
right: the right for animals not to abolitionist and welfare stance. of humans. The principle that be weighted in favour of the smoother proc- producers were
be treated as property (Table 1). New welfarists accept traditional animals are property – they are human right holder30. ess. But because
have no interests campaigning to
Francione views the animal rights welfare gains in the hope that goods to be bought and sold – is Francione is right to point WTO rules pro- independent of delay the EU legis-
debate as one between abolition these will eventually amount to deeply interwoven into the law. out that it is naive to believe hibit countries those assigned by lation that will ban
and animal welfare legislation5. full recognition of animal rights As Lubinski23 further points that changes in animal welfare from distinguishing humanity.” battery cages in
He claims the animal rights posi- with all its consequences12. New out, treating animals as property regulation will lead to abolition31. between products 201239. Although
tion represents the abolitionist welfarists reject the notion that is not strictly a matter of law, Despite support in the form of on the basis of how they have veal crates have been banned
position, and the welfare position animals are merely tools for however, as it is also deeply animal welfare regulation, as a been produced, animal products in the UK since 1990, the unac-
merely advocates regulation of humanity13. According to Fran- entrenched in western religion24 society we have progressed little imported for sale in Europe do ceptable, yet seemingly accepted,
animal exploitation as it relates cione, welfarists strategies tend and culture. Philosophers have with regard to our treatment of not have to meet European practice of shooting bull calves at
to confinement agriculture6. to mimic those of traditional equally wrestled with the pro- animals in the past 200 years. In standards for animal welfare36. birth on dairy enterprises is yet to
In “Differing perspectives welfare-based groups14. prietary nature of humanity’s actual fact, we have taken a step As per Francione, the WTO be resolved40. According to one
on animals”, Lubinski7 – along He claims the animal protec- interactions with animals25. back and seem to have accepted undercuts the whole argument of press report, almost half a million
the lines of Francione’s view tion movement is in favour of Thus, to the law, religion and the treatment of animals accord- animal welfare, as cheaper animal bull calves a year within the UK
– presents the case of “rights” abolition, but fears that society philosophy, animals are chattels ing to the Cartesian principle32, products are allowed to be pro- are either shot on farm soon
versus “welfare”, highlighting the is not yet prepared: the general whose destiny is directed by when we look at the excesses duced abroad in countries that after birth or will be exported
disagreement within the animal view of the abolitionist theory humans. As property, they have of confinement agriculture in do not adhere to higher animal to continental veal farms41,42.
protection movement about the is still considered to be utopian no interests independent of Europe and elsewhere. welfare standards. These prod- An industry that dispatches of
goals that should be sought on and idealistic. Abolitionist theory those assigned by humanity. Francione bemoans the ucts will ultimately be allowed male progeny because they
behalf of non-humans. is often considered “unpalatable” However, we can all appreci- present cycle of welfare meas- to be imported into countries are surplus to requirements 43
Lubinski points out that some because, apart from the prescrip- ate that animals are not just like ure leading to more welfare that adhere to higher welfare will have to give the abolitionist
rights advocates (abolitionists)8 tion to lead vegan lifestyles, it will any other household property26. measures without addressing standards. If there is demand, ideal momentum.
these cheaper and poorly pro- Although the Animal Welfare
TABLE 1. The animal protectionist spectrum
duced products will still enter the Act 2006 (England and Wales)
Traditional animal welfare advocacy (welfarists) New welfarism Abolitionism
country. Free-trade agreements has certainly made a big differ-
Animal welfare supporters (“welfarists”) accept the Although taking a position between Abolitionists seek to change the fundamental prohibit the use of barriers. This ence in enforcing the law, it is
legal status of animals as property. This utilitarian abolitionism and welfarism, new legal status of animals away from mere
view is not concerned with the use of animals for welfarists found their beliefs on the property towards something closer to is another reason why Francione questionable whether improved
food per se, but with their treatment before basis of welfarist views. personhood. Francione argues for the right of supports the abolitionist idea, enforcement of welfare regula-
slaughter and consumption15. non-humans not to be treated as property16.
stating: “The public have a vague tion44 would allow us to progress
Animal welfare supporters accept “benevolent New welfarists argue that the abolitionist Abolitionists believe humans and sympathy for animals but most beyond the status quo.
dominion”17 over animals that expressly reaffirms position is currently not achievable – therefore, non-humans possess some inalienable
humanity’s superiority to other species; however, incremental changes in animal welfare rights that deserve recognition and people are not willing to spend Some European countries
animals ought not to suffer unnecessarily. regulation ought to be pursued in the quest to protection. They reject human dominion. more on animal products.” have progressed further and,
improve the welfare of animals.
Procrastination and question- although still welfarist in nature,
See footnote 30. For an example of a new welfarist stance see Abolitionists reject the stance of new
Temple Grandin18 and footnote 29. welfarists, arguing that incremental changes able welfare add-ons very much progress has been made, par-
regarding animal welfare regulations, for dominate our current “welfarist” ticularly where the law has been
example, do nothing to address the plight of
confinement agriculture. regulation; the EU directive that amended to give animals special
Traditional welfarists accept keeping and slaughter To raise animals for slaughter in a confinement They condone animal use for food; only by all pigs must have permanent protection. By adding the words
of animals for food on an ancient contract basis19. setting is acceptable to new welfarists20. leading a vegan lifestyle animal suffering can access to manipulable materials37 “and the animals” to its constitu-
be directly addressed21.
addressing environmental enrich- continued on page 24

VT38.20 master.indd 22 23/5/08 10:12:55

 Animal Health

Travelling dogs
deserve a break
from ticks, mosquitoes, sand flies and the risk
of Canine Vector-Borne Diseases (CVBD)

Ticks transmit serious diseases

In many European countries, travelling dogs
are at risk from tick-transmitted borreliosis,
babesiosis and ehrlichiosis – all of which can
be extremely debilitating. Borreliosis, or Lyme
Disease, is also a risk to dogs here in the UK.

Mosquitoes and sand flies can be deadly

Mosquitoes carry dirofilariasis and sand flies
are vectors of leishmaniasis – both serious
and potentially fatal diseases.

Repel ticks, mosquitoes and sand flies

Advantix effectively repels and kills ticks
before they can attach. Advantix also
repels mosquitoes and sand flies – and
kills fleas too.

Advantix – reduce the risk of CVBD.

*Must have a marketing authorisation in the country of use.

Advantix contains 10% imidacloprid and 50% permethrin. Please refer to appropriate data sheet, further information is available on request.
® Registered Trade Mark of Bayer AG. Bayer plc, Animal Health Division, Bayer House, Strawberry Hill, Newbury RG14 1JA. Tel: 01635 563000.
DOGS ONLY POM-V REPELS AND KILLS TICKS

VT38.20 master.indd 23 22/5/08 09:14:35

 24 POINT-OF-VIEW
n Animal rights: property vs
protection – from page 22
tion, Germany became the first legislation stretches beyond the
country in the EU to guarantee requirements of the EU direc-
the highest level of legal pro- tives for species for which the EU
tection to non-humans45. The has so far issued such directives.
German Animal Protection Law The Swedish parliament long
(Tierschutzgesetz)46 is consid- ago passed an animal protec-
ered among the strongest in tion law that grants domestic
the world47. The law begins by animals the right to a favour-
declaring an intent to “protect able environment where their
the life and well-being of animals natural behaviour is protected.
as fellow creatures”48. Animal husbandry measures are
In addition, the German civil concentrated on keeping animals
code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) healthy and content51. All cattle
was expanded in 1990 to recog- are entitled to be put out to
nise that: “Animals are not things. graze if they are more than six
They are protected by special months old. Sows can no longer
laws in that laws pertaining to be tethered, and there is provi-
physical objects apply to them sion that they should have suf-
only so far as there is no special ficient room to move. Separate
regulation concerning them”49. bedding, feeding and voiding
Sweden has a long history of places are to be provided.
detailed and progressive legisla- Breeding pigs should be given
tion relating to the welfare of the opportunity to stay outdoors
laboratory, farm and companion in the summer. Cows and pigs
animals. The first ban on animal must have access to straw and
abuse was issued in 1857 and, in litter in stalls and boxes. Live-
1944, complete animal welfare stock buildings must be fitted
legislation came into force 50. with windows that let in light.
In many cases, the Swedish Technology must be adapted to
“Compared with the situation in the US,
European legislation could be considered a
success story. The United States has some of the
weakest farm animal welfare standards in the
developed world – effectively excluding 98 per
cent of animals from welfare bills.”
Camelid medicine, nutrition and
reproduction
Friday 18th and Saturday 19th July 2008
Course fee £509.79 + VAT (£599)
This lecture and practical two day course is suitable for any vets
working with South American camelids (llamas and alpacas).
By the end of the course, delegates should feel much more
prepared to deal with both routine and emergency camelid work.
Key areas to be covered:
s)NTRODUCTIONTOCAMELIDMEDICINESPECIESDIFFERENCES J (1987), Utilitarianism and Other
s#AMELIDMEDICINETOPICS
s#AMELIDNEONATOLOGY
s.EONATALDIARRHOEA
s#AMELIDEMERGENCIES
s2EPRODUCTIVEANATOMYANDPHYSIOLOGYMALEANDFEMALE and not regulate animal exploitation
s)NFERTILITYINCAMELIDSMALEANDFEMALE (www.abolitionist-online.com/article-
s#AMELIDNUTRITION
Practicals will cover:
s)NTRAVENOUSCATHETERPLACEMENTUSINGALPACAVENIPUNCTUREMODEL
s!BDOMINALULTRASOUND
s!PPROACHTOREPRODUCTIVEEVALUATIONANDULTRASOUND
(demonstration)
Sharing passions, shaping futures
See www.rvc.ac.uk/cpd for full course details
To register or for further information contact the
26##0$UNIT
4EL 
&AX 
%MAILCPD RVCACUK
7EBWWWRVCACUK
VT38.20 master.indd 24
the animals – not the reverse52.
Conventional battery cages for
laying hens have been banned in
Sweden since 198853, and most
egg producers have changed
to either modified cages with
perches, dust baths and nests, or
to aviary or barn systems.
Compared with the situation
in the US, European legislation
could be considered a success
story. The United States has
some of the weakest farm animal
welfare standards in the devel-
oped world – effectively exclud-
ing 98 per cent of animals from
welfare bills54. The weakness
of the US standards seems in
direct proportion to the eco-
nomic and political strength of
the agribusiness lobbyists.
The Animal Welfare Act is one
of the most important pieces of
animal-related federal legisla-
tion55 in the US in recent years. It
generally applies to animals used
in research and exhibitions, and
commercial breeders of dogs
and cats sold for research and the
pet trade56. However, the act
does not apply to animals raised
for food or food production57.
Twenty-eight states have
enacted laws that create a legal
realm whereby certain acts, no
matter how cruel, are outside
the reach of anti-cruelty statutes
as long as the acts are deemed
“accepted”, “common”, “custom-
ary” or “normal” farming prac-
tices58. These statutes have given
producers the power to define
www.rvc.ac.uk
Essays 228, 252, Ryan A (ed), New
York: Penguin.
acupuncture and animal
welfare. He works in mixed
practice and primarily writes
cruelty to animals for themselves
– an example of the significant
trend in the US to remove legal
protection from animals raised
for food or food production
altogether. These unfortunate
animals do not receive the legal
protection from cruelty that
other animals receive.
Similarly, certain states’ anti-
cruelty statutes also exclude
poultry, which represent an esti-
mated 95 per cent of the more
than seven billion farm animals
slaughtered annually. There is
also no federal law governing the
welfare of farmed animals on the
farm and the federal laws relating
to transport and slaughter are
also very problematic59.
It is equally not acceptable
that because of economic pres-
sure, animals farmed for food are
denied veterinary care60.
Only recently has the public
awoken to the extent of agri-
business shortcomings and our
transgressional use of animals.
Whether public dissent is driven
by an aesthetic dislike of “com-
mon farming practices” (includ-
ing foie gras production61, see
Figure 1) or an enlightenment
driven by the wish to reconnect
with nature and animals on an
ancient contract basis, a re-evalu-
ation of our relationship with ani-
mals may lead us to warm more
to the abolitionist idea. The
veterinary profession may have
to explain its position. Should
our duty to inform include a
demonstration of the absence of
a presumed presence of law?
Footnotes
1. In previous articles in this series,
we have explained various trains
of thought in society over recent
centuries. Immanuel Kant merely
thought of animals as “man’s instru-
ments”, deserving protection only to
help human beings in their relation
to one anothera. We also highlighted
Jeremy Bentham’s school of thought,
suggesting that mistreatment of ani-
mals was akin to racial discrimination
(echoed by John Stuart Mill)b.
a. Kant I (1963), Lectures on Ethics
(translated by Louis Infield), New
York: Harper Torchbooks.
b. Bentham J, The Principles of Mor-
als and Legislation, chapter XVII,
section IV [–1781], Amherst, NY.
Prometheus (1988), at 310-311, and
John Stuart Mill, “Whewell on moral
philosophy,” in Mill J S and Bentham
he argues that any sentient being
does), our use of them as human
resources, however “humanely” we
treat them, cannot be defended mor-
2. For a definition of “rights”, see
ally, and we should seek to abolish
issue05_gary.francione_abolition.
ceives to be important in the animal
rights debate is that of animals not to
be treated as property. He refers to
FRANK BUSCH has a
predominantly small animal
background and his main
interests are physiotherapy,
of animal science at Colorado State
on veterinary ethics and
animal-assisted therapy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights
3. “I think of a right as a claim that
someone has with respect to a par-
ticular interest. If I have the right to
liberty, that means I have the ability
to stop you from interfering with
that right. A right protects an interest
that can’t be compromised simply
because there would be beneficial
consequences if it were. It’s an inter-
est that’s considered so important
[that] it can’t be traded away.” Inter-
view with Gary Francione at http://
www.earthsave.ca/files/francione.pdf
4. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Gary_L._Francione#Bibliography
5. Francione uses the term “regula-
tion” rather than “animal welfare leg-
islation”. See http://veganfreakradio.
com/index.php?id=82
6. Also termed “agribusiness”, “indus-
trial agriculture” or “factory farming”.
See Cassuto D N: “Bred meat: the
cultural foundation of the factory farm”
(http://law.duke.edu/journals/lcp).
7. See Lubinski J (2004), Introduction
to Animal Rights, Michigan State Uni-
versity, Detroit College of Law.
8. For definitions of the terms in differ-
ent contexts, see http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Abolitionism (context slav-
ery) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Abolitionism_%28bioethics%29
(context bioethics).
9, 10. Regan T (2001), Defending Ani-
mal Rights, University of Illinois Press.
11. Francione G L, Animal Rights and
Animal Welfare, supra note 18 at 397.
12. Francione considers animal rights
organisations like PETA and promi-
nent individuals, such as Bernard
Rollin and Temple Grandin, to be
“new welfarists”, because some of
their efforts regarding the improve-
ment of animal welfare are bought by
serving ideas to producers on how to
maximise efficiency in animal produc-
tion, rather than address the issue of
animal exploitation per se. See the
same reference as footnote five.
13, 14. Francione G (1996), Rain
Without Thunder, Temple University
Press, supra note 46 at 36-37.
15. This reflects the views of Jeremy
Bentham, the 19th century utilitar-
ian on whom Peter Singer bases his
theory. Bentham argued that although
animals could suffer and, therefore,
mattered morally, animals would not
care whether, for instance, we killed
and consumed them. According to
Bentham, animals only care about
how we treat them until we kill them
for their meat. This view – that it is
not the animal use per se, but their
treatment that matters – is, according
to Francione, the foundation of animal
welfare ideology and differs from the
animal rights position as we have
described it in this article. Francione
maintains that if animals have an
interest in continued existence (and
to do now” (see same reference as
footnote 15). In this article, Francione
further suggests that campaigns that
would encourage consumers to eat at
least one vegan meal a day would be
much better than encouraging them
to eat “free range” meat, eggs or dairy
with every meal. He concludes: “The
of.animal.exploitation.2006.shtm).
16. The only right Francione per-
is the baseline principle of a move-
ment that promotes abolition.”
the moral obligation humans have in
this regard. He argues that institutional
exploitation merely exists because of
our use of animals as “things” (see
reference in footnote 15).
17. Same reference as footnote seven.
18. The autistic associate professor
publications/reports/The_Global_
University has been involved for
a number of years with improving
design and safety issues in slaughter
plants. In Francione’s eyes, Grandin
represents a typical new welfarist.
Veterinary Times
Grandin has been quoted as saying: “I
think using animals for food is an ethi-
cal thing to do, but we’ve got to do it
right. We’ve got to give those animals
a decent life and we’ve got to give
them a painless death. We owe the
animal respect” (http://en.wikipedia.
o r g / w i k i / Te m p l e _ G r a n d i n ) .
Grandin’s expert opinion has been
recently sought following a PETA
undercover investigation at a kosher
slaughter plant (www.peta.org/feat/
proggy/2004/winners.html). Grandin
also oversees McDonald’s auditor
training (www.mcdonalds.com/corp/
values/purchasing/animalwelfare/
program_implementation.html).
19. The term seems to have first
been coined by Stephen Budiansky
(see “The ancient contract”, US
News and World Report, March 20,
1989: 74-79). It describes the early
symbiotic relationship man had with
animals: a mutually beneficial rela-
tionship between man and domes-
tic animal, based on good animal
husbandry, which would ultimately
ensure human survival. In “Thinking
in pictures”, Grandin comments on
the Budiansky article: “Recently I read
an article that had a profound effect
on my thinking […] It presented a
natural historical view of our evolv-
ing relationship with animals […]
People feed, shelter, and breed cattle
and hogs, and in return the animals
provide food and clothing. We must
never abuse them, because that
would break the ancient contract.
We owe it to the animals to give them
decent living conditions and a pain-
less death […]” (www.spinninglobe.
net/cowlady.htm).
20. In Singer’s most recent book
– Singer P and Mason J (2006), The
Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices
Matter (1st edn), Rodale Books – he
and co-author Jim Mason claim that
society can be “conscientious omni-
vores” and exploit animals ethically
if, for example, we choose to eat the
meat of only animals that have been
well cared for and then killed without
pain or distress. For Francione this is
as much an unacceptable stance as
a fallacy and he remarks that such
a stance will inevitably lead to an
increase in consumption of animal
products. Francione further remarks
that an increased demand will exac-
erbate animal suffering. According
to Francione, the “consume with
conscience” approach merely serves
to perpetuate and legitimise the
consumption of animal products (see
same reference as footnote 15).
21. Francione comments: “We are
inflicting pain, suffering, and death
on billions of non-humans every
year. No one – including the most
convinced abolitionist – maintains
that we can stop that overnight or,
indeed, anytime soon. The issue
that confronts the advocate is what
message should be clear: veganism,
and not ‘compassionate consumption’
22. An interview with Gary Francione
(see reference at footnote five) partly
refers to Singer and Mason’s book
(see reference in footnote 20). Meat
consumption per se has become a
contentious issue because of environ-
mental concerns and world hunger
and poverty (see www.ciwf.org/
Benefits_of_Eating_Less_Meat.pdf).
Apart from his criticism aimed at
Singer, Francione equally criticises
PETA: “On one hand, PETA purports
to encourage veganism. On the other
23/5/08 10:13:11
 June 2, 2008 POINT-OF-VIEW 25
hand, PETA’s campaigns are, for the of animals, Arizona Legal Studies Veterinary Times (38.10 and 38.14). www.bbc.co.uk/food/food_matters/ Veterinary Medicine, Swedish Uni-
most part, focused on traditional Discussion Paper No 06-23, Law and 41. See www.farmersguardian.com/ veal.shtml#continental_trade versity of Agricultural Sciences.
welfare regulation and PETA actively Contemporary Problems, 70: 87 (at story.asp?storycode=15813 and 43. This also applies to the chicken 51. Animal Welfare Institute, supra
and confusingly promotes the con- http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers. www.ciwf.org.uk/home/news-calf- meat and egg industry, where male note 13, at 305; Swedish Animal
cept of ‘humanely’ produced animal cfm?abstract_id=912815). exports-stakeholder.shtml as well as hatchlings are dispatched off. Male Protection, cited in Swedish Ministry
products” (see same reference as 33. Battery hens that supply some “UK calf transport and veal rearing” day-old chicks of the laying breeds of Agriculture Press Release (May 27,
footnote 15). Francione points out major fast-food chains may now by Claire Weeks (www.ciwf.org/pub- are killed according to the Humane 1988). See also Lidfors L, Berg C and
that PETA seems to present vegan- live in an area that is equivalent to a lications/reports/UK_Calf_Transport Slaughter Association’s Code of Algers B (2005), Integration of natural
ism merely as an optional lifestyle square of about 8.5in, rather than the _and_Veal_Rearing.pdf). In a new Practice for the Disposal of Chicks in behaviour in housing systems, AMBIO:
choice (which is often portrayed industry standard – a square of about initiative, some of the UK’s biggest Hatcheries (see www.hsa.org.uk and A Journal of the Human Environment,
as being difficult and only for the 7in. Francione states it would be supermarkets will indirectly support previous articles by the author). 34(4): 325–330 (search for arti-
committed few rather than as an nonsense to claim that the existence dairy farmers who are willing to rear 44. For further information, see “Sig- cle at http://ambio.allenpress.com).
easy way to eliminate exploitation). of a battery hen is anything but miser- their bull calves to enter the domestic nificant gaps in contemporary animal
23. See reference able (see reference supply chain in an attempt to make 52. Wolfson D J (1996), Beyond the
welfare legislation” (www.animal-law. Figure 2. Mulesing. Are
at footnote seven. “A re-evaluation of in footnote 15). up the current 250,000 tonne short- law: agribusiness and the systematic
biz/animals-and-law.php). food animals commodities
fall in production each year in the abuse of animals raised for food pro-
24. The Old Testa- 34. See reference in 45. Engelsman S J (2005). World without rights or value?
our relationship UK beef industry. duction (www.animallaw.info/articles/
ment, for instance, footnote 15. Fran- leader – at what price? A look at arus2animall123.htm).
decrees that animals with animals cione urges us to 42. Compared with other European lagging American animal protection 55. In the USA, there are several
are goods over pursue incremen- countries, very little veal is eaten in laws, Pace Envtl L Rev 22: 329 (www. 53. A 10-year transition period fol- tiers of legislation: federal laws apply
may lead us to tal change both on the UK, but only a small proportion lowed by a period where exemptions
which humanity has animallaw.info/articles/arus22pace throughout the country, state laws
dominion (see King warm more to the an individual and of that consumed is produced under envtllrev329.htm). could be made for individual farms. apply only in the relevant state, and
James Bible, Book of abolitionist idea. societal level, in a welfare-friendly systems in Britain. 46, 47. www.tierhelfer-ingelheim. Thus, there should be no more bat- there may also be localised by-laws
Genesis 1:20–25). manner consistent Some supermarkets sell only British de/Seiten/TSchG.html tery cages left in production today. or city/district laws. Federal law may
This will be dis- The veterinary with abolitionist phi- veal, but many hotels, restaurants See Berg C and Hammarström M only be agreed in areas covered by
48. Art 1 Tierschutzgesetz.
cussed in the next profession may losophy and within and other caterers sell veal imported (2006), The process of building a new the constitution. Thus, most animal
article in this series. the context of an from the continent. Thus, we may 49. Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch 90a. governmental authority based on protection laws are at state level.
have to explain its explicit recognition be importing and eating meat pro- 50. Ekesbo I (2003). Kompendium public demands for improved animal
25. For John Locke, 56. 7 USC ss 2131-2159 (1994).
for example, animals position.” of the inherent value duced under systems illegal in this i husdjurshygien (Syllabus in Animal welfare, Livestock Science, 103(3):
of animals. country. See farm animal information Hygiene), Department of Animal 297-302, Ethics in Animal Agriculture. 57. Section 2132(g) of the Animal
were something
common to the world, not unlike 35. See Peter Stevenson: “The World (accessed via www.rspca.org.uk) and Environment and Health, Faculty of 54. See reference in footnote 52. continued overleaf
the air we breathe – how could Trade Organisation rules: a legal
something of that nature be legally analysis of their adverse impact on
possessed by any one individual? animal welfare” (www.animallaw.info/
See Francione G (1994), Animals, articles/arukstevensonwto2003.htm).
property and legal welfarism: “unnec- 36. The WSPA remarks: “It is unreal-
essary” suffering and the “humane” istic to ask farmers in Europe to raise
treatment of animals, Rutgers L Rev their environmental and animal wel-
Grab the fastest growing
Vets4Pets practice of 2007
46: 721, 733. fare standards yet, at the same time,
26. For a more detailed discussion allow goods from other countries that
of animals status as property, see don’t meet these standards to flood
Francione G (1995), Animals, Property the market. If Europe wants higher
and the Law, Temple University Press. standards, then it must be prepared to
See also Wise S M (1996), The legal protect those standards in international
thinghood of nonhuman animals, B C trade from cheaper imports from A unique partnership opportunity is now available with Vets4Pets. Our Preston site was
Envtl Aff L Rev 23: 471. countries which do not meet those the fastest growing practice of 2007. It registered over 2,000 clients in the first twelve
27. See discourse on the principle standards” (http://wspafarmwelfare. months and continues to grow at an impressive rate.
of equal consideration of interests, org/wtohome.html).
which has been discussed in previous 37. See www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/
articles in this series. welfare/farmed/pigs/index.htm
Set in the beautiful county of Lancashire, Preston Vets4Pets is situated on a main arterial
28. Often termed “anti-cruelty legisla- 38. DEFRA states: “Nevertheless,
road, with twelve practice car parking spaces and living accommodation available. This
tion” in the United States. we should prefer, if possible, to avoid is an opportunity not to be missed and it could be yours for an investment of only £30,000.
29. See Fairfax C, What Legal Rights the close confinement of all sows [...]
for Animals (www.animalaid.org. This is why we are funding research Partnering with Vets4Pets gives you 100% of the profits and all
uk/h/n/CAMPAIGNS/philosophy/ to develop and test commercially
ALL/403//:). Fairfax seems content viable farrowing systems that do not the goodwill of this established practice. And of course the
with incremental progress and states: closely confine the sow, but provide usual Vets4Pets deal of 100% clinical freedom, no out of hours
“Only last year, the Home Office pro- adequate protection to piglets. Some and tremendous business support all come as part of the
duced a document in response to a such alternative systems seem prom-
report from the Parliamentary Animal ising in an experimental environment, package. This is backed by a guaranteed salary of £35,000 from
Procedures Committee which recog- but in others, piglet mortality has day one (projected earnings in excess of £60,000 within five
nised that great apes have a ‘special been unacceptably high. It remains
moral status’ which would preclude the case that results need to be
years). Finally we are offering a relocation package to help you
them from being used in experi- replicated consistently under com- on your way, so what’s stopping you?
ments. […] Once it is accepted that mercial conditions” (same reference
any species of non-human animal has as footnote 37). This is a great opportunity to join Vets4Pets, so whether you
a status inconsistent with its treatment
39. In January 2008, the European are thinking of going it alone or teaming up with a fellow vet or
as property then it must surely be a
Commission published its report
small step to recognise that species
in which it recommended that the vet nurse, call Richard Powell on 07768 201 912 or email
should be afforded true ‘rights’ and partnership@vets4pets.com to find out how you could have an
ban on battery cages should not be
the precedent is then set to extend
postponed, but should come into exceptional future with us.
the same treatment to other non
force in 2012 as planned. Peter
human animal species.”
Stevenson, chief policy advisor at
30. Taimie Bryant dissects this topic Compassion in World Farming, said:
elegantly in her article “Similarity “The directive gave farmers a very
or difference as a basis for justice: generous 12 years to move away
must animals be like humans to be from battery cages. It’s a scandal that
legally protected from humans?” the industry has been pressing for
She presents the similarity argument even more time. [...] The spotlight
we have touched on in previously now switches to powerful member
articles – justice requires that animals states like France, Spain and Poland,
be protected from human (ab)use all of which want the ban to be
because animals are similar enough postponed. The question is will they
to humans to be given protections accept the commission’s ruling or will
similar to those that humans have they try to overturn it and get the ban
from each other (search for article put back or even scrapped? [DEFRA]
at www.law.duke.edu). A podcast of has made it clear that the UK does not
the Animal Law Conference (at which want the ban to be delayed.” Barren
Bryant was a speaker), held in 2006, battery cages confine laying hens in
can be found at http://realserver.law. small wire cages with less space than
duke.edu/ramgen/spring06/students/ an A4 sheet of paper each. These
04072006a1.rm conditions cause immense suffering
31. See Francione G (2000). Intro- and leave hens unable to exercise or
duction to Animal Rights: Your Child or to carry out many important natural
the Dog? Temple University Press. behaviours. Scientific research shows
32. The Cartesian view has already that battery cages severely compro-
been discussed in this series. For fur- mise hen welfare. See www.ciwf. www.vets4pets.com
ther reading see Ibrahim D M (2007). org.uk/home/news-eu-battery-cage-
A return to Descartes: property, ban-upheld.shtml
profit and the corporate ownership 40. See also Roger Evans’ musings in

VT38.20 master.indd 25 23/5/08 10:39:25