misinformation
As we continue to import these products, highlighting that they do not meet our current welfare standards is an important step towards increasing consumer awareness.
But proposed labeling improvements alone are not enough. The public may be aware of some highly publicized examples of abhorrent agricultural practices that do not meet our standards, but the more important question is: do Does it meet our standards?
In the 1960s, the British public criticised livestock farmers for prioritising efficiency over welfare, which prompted efforts to improve standards. But it also led to efforts to “welfare-wash” the industry, that is, to deceive the public into thinking that they were committed and trustworthy defenders of animal welfare.
Welfare laundering is a strategic response to the public’s conflicting desires: to consume large quantities of animal products at low prices without endorsing the extreme welfare compromises required for mass production.
We have long had a crisis of misinformation about what the UK does to farm animals.
infant
While the industry clearly has no incentive to tell the full details of what goes on behind the scenes on its farms, welfare experts and governments are also failing to inform the public about what practices they are actually paying for.
Filling this void are animal welfare groups, which are exposing the abuse through their work, especially investigating, filming and distributing footage of state farms.
It is tempting to assume that animal welfare groups’ revelations show violations of strict welfare laws and codes of practice, and that the horrors shown are the fault of a few bad apples in an industry focused on welfare. But this is often not the case.
Check out the recently released video. Animal Equality UK at Cross FarmA Devon pig farm. Footage shows piglets on dirty floors, suckling from sows confined in farrowing crates slightly larger than their bodies.
Piglets had their teeth and tails cut off without any pain relief. Weak piglets were killed by being dragged by the legs and slammed on the concrete floor. This method is called ‘thumping’.
pain
The public reaction showed that they felt their trust had been breached. “I’m not a vegetarian but I want the animals to be properly and kindly cared for and euthanized,” one said. And the video was considered illegal. “There has to be a way to prosecute the supermarket. They are complicit in this.”
But the practice is legal and common. Tail ‘docking’ is a legal way to prevent tail biting, a behavior that originated in the indoor farm environments where 60% of our pigs live.
It must be done before the piglets are 7 days old, and it is legal to not give them painkillers during that period. Breeding mother pigs are legally confined in pens from birth to weaning. It is not only legal but also encouraged to beat piglets. If done quickly and forcefully enough, it is considered better than the alternative of starving or trampling to death.
Think “prime cut”, “top quality” food, “butcher’s choice”. Adding “100% British” and “animal welfare certified” to the packaging only helps to reassure consumers that the product has come from a source that treats animals well and is ethically reputable, so there’s nothing wrong with buying from that source.
So if the government is serious about addressing consumer ignorance about animal products, perhaps politicians and ministers should figure out a way to better inform the public about British ham.
Imagine a world where pork labels tell you whether the meat comes from piglets whose tails have been cut off without painkillers, or from mother pigs who are kept in cages slightly larger than their own bodies, or from their weaker siblings who were killed headfirst by the walls of their pig pens. It’s food for thought.
This author
Eva Reid is a PhD student at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
