Letter to the Editor, Readers Digest Magazine, December 2007

The October issue of Readers Digest carries an editorial titled “Food For Thought: Pets are family, but chickens are food?” Written by a rural vet in Quebec, this editorial claims to “examine our changing view of other creatures” to make an argument for applying the same standards to food animals as we do our pets.

We are all entitled to our opinions. However, the author does a disservice to both readers and farmers by making the unfair comparison between pets and food animals. The author views our treatment of cats and dogs- “as indulged and pampered emotional fixtures in our lives”- to be a success story in how we relate to animals. And “as our empathy for our pets grows deeper”, she argues, “our indifference to similarly sentient animals we eat grows more
startling.” Citing the “unpleasantness of industrial farming and
slaughterhouses”, the author creates a bucolic picture of how agriculture should be by describing how she treats her backyard laying hens much like her pets.

What is wrong with this picture?

We need to be reminded that no society eats an animal considered to be a pet regardless of the species that pet might be. We also need to remember that animals raised for food (or any other working purpose for that matter) have never been viewed as pets and have never been treated as pets. This is logical since ”pets” are meant to fulfil an emotional need not a practical need.

Because it is written by a rural vet, who selectively cites facts and
figures, this opinion may carry credibility with a widely non-farm
readership. For example, today’s “industrial farmers” are faulted for
creating practices that have made it possible to feed our rapidly expanding world. Yet many of the practices cited, including selective breeding and culling animals that under-perform, have long existed, albeit on a smaller scale suited to a smaller world. The author falsely accuses “industrial farms” for creating animal health problems that have in fact plagued animals and farmers for centuries- regardless of the housing and husbandry practices used. Not mentioned, is that farm animals, like pets, are living healthier lives today. The author even goes so far as to fault Canada’s food providers for supplying affordable, safe and nutritious protein because it is, in her mind, tasteless. And while all methods of raising food animals have their
own set of problems, the author ignores this fact and the strides being made to overcome them.

Most important of all, however, is that the author accuses both consumers and “industrial farmers” as lacking in empathy for the animals we eat. Readers are led to believe that because we don’t treat food animals with the same “tenderness and devotion” we provide our pets that we don’t care. And it is just as false and misleading to conclude that our indifference is growing. The fact is that farming practices, regardless of the farm size or farming methods used, continue to centre on meeting the needs of animals while meeting the needs and demands of consumers. Most farmers today remain committed to their responsibility to raise and care for their animals in the most practical and effective ways possible. The time, money and effort invested to further improve farm animal care are signs of a growing, not diminishing, commitment. The author goes so far as to blame consumers for enabling a system of food production that she clearly considers wrong. While most consumers today may be detached from farming it doesn’t mean they are indifferent.

The author is correct on one point however: our view of other creatures is changing. But it needs to be recognized that farm animals have benefited from that changing view.

Leslie Ballentine
Toronto

---

Posted by Admin on July 19th, 2009 :: Filed under Education and public awareness, Family vs factory farming
Tags :: activists, animal care, animal welfare, animals, Consumers, meat
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

---