Sentience, Cruelty, and and Farm Animals

On July 26, the Globe and Mail ran an interesting long piece by Thomas Verny on animal sentience ("The controversy behind animal sentience"). The piece focuses extensively on the views of Prof. Georgia Mason of Guelph University, whom Verny quotes as describing herself "as a passionate animal welfare advocate." Mason sums up the approach she recommends in this way: "Pain and suffering is morally relevant. We need to think, ‘Can we reduce it?’ The guiding question should perhaps not be ‘is there evidence that this species is sentient?’ but rather ‘are we sure it is not?’”

Prof. Mason responded to Verny's piece with a letter to the Globe (the full version of which has been made public by the University of Guelph), expressing her regret that Verny had not referenced the view--still apparently held by a few scientists and by more than a few agricultural associations--"that most animals are non-sentient":

...[F]or instance, ... the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has proposed that farm animals lack sentience. Such positions potentially imply that fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and farm animals need no protection from welfare harms. Currently the National Farm Animal Care Council and Canadian Council on Animal Care do somewhat protect these animals. However, whether they protect them enough, or protect all relevant species, is an ongoing ethical issue....

I wrote the Globe to take issue with Mason's use of the word "somewhat." For it's not enough for these councils to accept that animals are sentient if the practices the councils consider acceptable entail horrific cruelty to these sentient creatures--and in the real world of today's animal agriculture industry, that is exactly what happens. The paper published a lightly edited version of my letter in the August 6 issue; I'll provide here the full text:

RE “The controversy behind animal sentience” (July 26): In her August 2 letter, Georgia Mason writes that “currently, the National Farm Animal Care Council and Canadian Council on Animal Care do somewhat protect” farm animals. The fact is that neither they nor the federal or provincial governments provide meaningful guards against cruelty to farm animals. All provinces have made animal agriculture essentially exempt from animal cruelty laws; anything that is considered “generally accepted practice” is allowed. And what is generally accepted by the animal agriculture industry—and by these councils—entails horrific cruelty. Instead of focusing on reducing cruelty, our governments continue to pass “ag gag” laws designed to prevent the public from realizing the extent of the cruelty. Meaningful protection of farm animals on the part of our provincial and federal governments is long, long overdue.

That, of course, is to speak only of cruelty to the living; it is to say nothing of the cruelty of killing animals whose welfare we profess to care deeply about. The natural lifespan of a cow or pig can be at least 20 years; in modern factory farms, pigs are killed when they are no more than six months old, and "beef cattle" when they are no more than two years old. (Dairy cattle are also killed young--usually at about five years of age.) If we are truly "passionate animal welfare advocates," we should surely allow all animals to live out their natural lives--and adopt a whole-foods, plant-based diet ourselves. Healthier for us, healthier for the planet--and infinitely healthier for the animals we say we love. Sadly, human society as a whole seems still to be some considerable distance from taking such a step. But surely even carnivores should be insisting that farm animals be allowed to live reasonably happily during the short period before they are killed and eaten.