essay on animal products

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Deckers J. Animal (De)liberation: Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned? London: Ubiquity Press; 2016.

Animal (De)liberation: Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned?

Chapter one the consumption of animal products and the human right to health care, 1.1. introduction.

As human beings cannot stay healthy for long without adequate food, many people may agree that the human right to health care should include a right to adequate food. Having sufficient food that is adequate is a very basic human need, which is why the human interest in food is an excellent candidate for grounding a human right. This right has been defended by many, including the United Nations ( UN CESCR 1999 ; De Schutter 2011 ).

If we accept that every human being’s right to health care includes a right to food, it might be argued that there are situations where this right can only be protected by using other animals for food. As many animal products are relatively dense in nutrients compared to other foods, some groups of people who might particularly benefit from the consumption of animal products are very young children with limited stomach capacities relative to their energy demands and people living with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), who may have increased nutritional requirements but reduced appetites ( Randolph et al. 2007 ; Roubenoff 2000 ). These are just some examples of groups of people who might be more vulnerable in situations where they were denied the option of consuming animal products. Some populations would also be vulnerable, for example some Inuit who live at high northern latitudes and who may lack not only sufficient plant foods to feed themselves, but also the means to acquire them from elsewhere. The consumption of animal products may also be vitally important to many people who live in Asia, where much human population growth in the near future is expected to occur. To meet the challenge of feeding this growing population, it has been argued that, in many areas with relatively adverse environmental conditions, using animals may be indispensable ( Devendra 2007 ; Sharma et al. 2012 ). Some significant advantages that are conferred by the use of animals for human food are that some animals can eat plants, such as grass, that human beings cannot digest, and that some animals are better able to cope with drought compared to plants, for example due to their greater mobility ( Morton and Kerven 2013 ).

In addition, animals can be used to provide food not only directly, but also indirectly, by providing important services, for example by producing excrements that can be used as manure or fuel or by providing draught power and means of transportation that could save on human labour and fossil fuel consumption. In India, for example, over 55% of the total land that was cultivated in 2009 used animals for draught power ( Phaniraja and Panchasara 2009 ). Research in Africa by Iannotti et al. has also shown that the acquisition and use of chickens to produce eggs is ‘one of the few and first mechanisms for asset accumulation in poor households’ ( 2014 , 355). The authors add that programmes aimed at stimulating the keeping of chickens by poor people may be ‘an uncracked part of the solution’ to ‘undernutrition … in many parts of the world’ ( Iannotti et al. 2014 , 366). Accordingly, any strategy that considers reducing the human use of other animals must be careful not to undermine some people’s rights to food, an issue that I shall return to in section 3.5.2 .

Although the stipulation of a right to food is not free from problems—including the problem of what the correlative duties are of those who must ensure that every human being is able to obtain sufficient food—many ethical theories accept that any personal liberties that may be possessed by some individuals ought to be restricted by the (negative) duty to avoid significant harm to some other individuals ( Mill 1859 ; Raz 2010 ). In this light, some scholars have questioned the consumption of animal products, claiming that the fact that some people consume animal products causes hunger for other human beings ( Rifkin 1993 ; Lewis 1994 ; Popkin and Du 2003 ; Webb 2010 ). Singer, for example, has claimed that the fact that a lot of food that could be eaten by humans is fed to farmed animals is the primary cause of ‘the food crisis’ ( 2009 , 122), and Weis has similarly claimed that ‘the meatification of diets’ is ‘a vector of global inequality, environmental degradation, and climate injustice’ ( 2013 , 81–82). Whereas the authors of an influential report—‘the LEAD study’—entitled ‘Livestock’s Long Shadow’, published by the Livestock, Environment, and Development Initiative (LEAD), a group co-ordinated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), grant that the farmed animals’ sector is a major cause of environmental degradation, they cautiously reject the idea that this might be associated with injustice towards those who lack adequate food, writing: ‘it is probably true that livestock do not detract food from those who currently go hungry’ ( Steinfeld et al. 2006 , 270). What is undisputed, however, is that the increase in the human consumption of animal products over the last 50 years has been unprecedented. Most notably, the consumption of animals’ body parts has increased by more than fourfold. Rather than speak of the number of animals whose bodies are being used for human consumption, dominant metrics refer to this rise in terms of an increase in tonnage, lumping the bodies of different animals together in a common unit. According to the FAO (2014) , tonnage increased from 71,357,169 tonnes in 1961 to 262,919,740 tonnes in 2006 and to 302,390,507 tonnes in 2012, the latest year for which data are available at the time of writing.

About 30% of all animal-flesh consumption occurs in countries that account for no more than 12% of the world population. Ranked from higher to lower levels of total consumption, these are: the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Canada, and Western European countries (where consumption data are combined) ( Weis 2013 ). Although the consumption of animal products has now stagnated at high levels in many relatively rich countries, in many less affluent countries it has risen and is continuing to rise rapidly ( Steinfeld et al. 2006 , 15–16). China and Brazil in particular have seen rapid increases over the last 50 years, the former having seen a 15-fold and a 31-fold and the latter a 2.5-fold and an 11-fold increase in, respectively, total consumption and production of animal flesh ( Weis 2013 . A nutrition transition towards diets that are relatively rich in animal products has been and is taking place, which has been claimed to have contributed to recent food price increases ( Popkin 2009 ). This transition is associated with an unprecedented rise in what has been called ‘domesticated zoomass’—the weight of domesticated animals, which is estimated to have grown from 180 million tonnes in 1900 to 620 million tonnes in 2000, with what has been referred to as ‘bovine biomass’ having the largest share, with a share of 450 million tonnes ( Smil 2002 , 618).

Lipton (2001) has reported that, as demand for animal products frequently comes mainly from those who are relatively affluent, rising levels of affluence in relatively poor countries have led to an increasing amount of grain and land being used to feed farmed animals. Consequently, relatively poor people may suffer not only from the fact that the farmed animals’ sector displaces parts of other food sectors, but also from being displaced themselves. This risk of being displaced has increased in recent times due to what Webster (2013 , 10) has referred to as ‘the second industrial revolution’ in the farmed animals’ sector’s recent history—the first one being the capitalist transition from common to enclosed land. This second revolution, which started around 70 years ago, has resulted in the farm no longer depending on the land it occupies for its inputs. Rather, these can now be sourced from an increasingly globalised world where inputs are merely confined by capital and by the farm’s ability to process them.

Consequently, many indigenous communities, for example in Australia and in the Cerrado of Brazil, have been displaced by land appropriation for the expansion of the farmed animals’ sector ( Aldrich et al. 2012 ; White et al. 2012 ; MacDonald and Simon 2011 , 11–14; Stoll-Kleemann and O’Riordan 2015 , 41). What Australia and Brazil also have in common is that their farmed animals’ sectors are increasingly owned by a small number of large corporations with high levels of vertical integration (concentration of different stages of the production process) that allow these corporations to exercise a very high degree of control over the food system ( MacDonald and Simon 2011 ; Loughnan 2012 ). These centralising tendencies are by no means absent in other nations. Many people who work for these large corporations, for example in slaughterhouses and in other settings where the farmed animals’ sector relies on labour that is modelled on the repetitive, monotonous, and highly specialised work that is typical of many factories, belong to the lowest strata of society, and many are paid badly ( Joy 2010 , 85). Dillard (2008) , for example, reports that in the USA most slaughterhouse workers are paid relatively poorly to work in conditions where they are likely to endure both physical and psychological harm. Many studies report similar concerns. A study in Denmark, for example, reported high levels of physical and mental problems amongst slaughterhouse workers ( Kristensen 1991 ), whilst a study in Turkey identified increased psychological problems amongst butchers compared to office workers ( Emhan et al. 2012 ). In many countries, large farms (‘megafarms’) and slaughterhouses are also situated in relatively deprived areas, creating significant health concerns caused by localised pollution ( Fitzgerald 2010 ).

Against this backdrop, the objectives of this chapter are: firstly, to explore whether there are situations where the consumption of animal products jeopardises human rights to health care unjustifiably; and secondly, to address how human diets might be changed to address situations where it does so. As I shall argue in the appendix to this book, some people who consume particular animal products jeopardise their own health in some situations where they eat (too many) foods that are unhealthy, which imposes negative impacts on others, for example on taxpayers who pay for public health services. However, these are by no means the only ways in which human others are affected. In the preceding paragraph I have already reported facts that may trigger the question whether those who consume animal products impose unacceptable health risks on relatively poor people who may have little choice in deciding whether or not to work in conditions that are likely to compromise their physical and mental health. The same question might be asked when we consider the causal links between the human consumption of animal products and the creation and spread of zoonoses. Unlike diseases that may be caused directly by the consumption of animal products, many zoonoses also impact upon those who abstain from consuming animals.

After having described common zoonoses that have been associated with the consumption of animal products, this chapter will then consider whether the large quantities of resources that are used in the process of feeding the vast and increasing number of animals on the planet pose human health concerns. The land, water, and energy that are used to produce such a large quantity of animal products could frequently be used more efficiently if it was used to grow foods for direct human consumption. Even if the land, water, and energy requirements of different diets vary from place to place, depending (amongst other factors) on climate, water cycles, and the quality of the land, of the water, and of the technologies that are available, diets that include animal products generally require more resources. Some of the key issues that will be considered are the impacts on human health associated with land use and degradation, water use and pollution, and fossil fuel use and atmospheric pollution. Though these issues are interconnected, they will be separated for analytic reasons. A meta-analysis of different studies on these impacts has pointed out that studies have focused predominantly on global impacts that are relatively easy to quantify, such as emissions of greenhouse gases, and that localised impacts have been neglected because they are frequently much more difficult to quantify ( Pluimers and Blonk 2011 ). This explains why this overview is biased towards issues that are of global concern.

Whereas it will become clear in chapter two that the consumption of animal products produces many other negative GHIs apart from those that are discussed here and that it therefore presents other concerns related to the human right to health care, the overview that will be provided in this chapter may be sufficient to raise serious concern even amongst those who fail to recognise the (moral importance of the) interests discussed in chapter two .

1.2. Zoonoses

The vast majority of human diseases spread between different species of animals ( Woolhouse and Gowtage-Sequeria 2005 ; Torres-Vélez and Brown 2004 ; Grace 2015 ). Whereas some of these, for example tapeworms, primarily affect the bodies of those who consume animal products, others can affect everyone, regardless of whether or not they consume animal products themselves. The causes underlying the emergence and the re-emergence of zoonoses are complex. Whereas a detailed overview of these is provided by Ka-Wai Hui (2006) , at least four reasons show that the consumption of animal products poses a significant concern. Firstly, the scale of the farmed animals’ sector is unprecedented, increasing risk due to the sheer size of the animal population. Secondly, many animals display a high level of genetic uniformity as breeders select for a small number of traits, for example large muscle mass, resulting in a loss of resilience amongst populations and an increased susceptibility to infection. Thirdly, the vast majority of farmed animals are kept in confined spaces, increasing the risks of various infections due to increased contact, stress, and exposure to pathogens. Fourthly, animals are transported faster and over greater distances than ever before, increasing the spread of pathogens and reducing our ability to control it.

Many zoonoses stem from the ways in which farmed animals are treated by human beings. Cows are herbivorous animals, but many cows used to be fed with ground-up remains of slaughtered sheep and other cows, which led to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), which has also been called—ironically and derogatorily—‘mad cow disease’. The causal agent of BSE, a prion, was subsequently transmitted to humans, causing new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (nvCJD). Problems also stem from the ways in which human beings manage animal manure, of which there is no shortage. Manure provides a great vehicle for the spread of many pathogens which could subsequently present human health hazards ( Kanaly et al. 2009 , 23), for example Cryptosporidium parvum, Vibrio cholerae, Enterococcus spp., Escherichia coli serotype O157:H7 (or other faecal coliform bacteria that are pathogenic), staphylococci, and streptococci.

To fight disease, the farmed animals’ sector uses a large quantity of different kinds of drugs. Particular concerns have been expressed over the large-scale use of antibiotics ( Graham et al. 2016 ). Many antibiotics are used not because the animals are ill, but simply to prevent disease, or the spread of it, as well as to promote growth (by changing the bacteria in the animals’ digestive systems so that more nutrients are absorbed) ( Anomaly 2009 ; Price et al. 2015 ; Meek et al. 2015 ). The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a non-profit organisation based in the USA, has estimated that the amount of antibiotics that are used by the farmed animals’ sector in the USA merely to prevent disease is eight times greater than that of antibiotics used to treat human disease ( UCS 2001 ). Globally, it has been estimated that about half of all antibiotics that are produced are given to farmed animals ( Steinfeld et al. 2006 , xx, 273). This promotes the development of drug resistant strains of pathogenic bacteria, of which box 1 provides some examples.

Box 1: Examples of drug resistant bacteria in relation to the use of antibiotics in the farmed animals’ sector.

Vector-borne illnesses are diseases that are caused by infections that are transmitted to people by arthropods (insects and arachnids). Many vector-borne diseases, as well as viral diseases, have either emerged or become more severe because of human environmental changes, including deforestation and the reduction of biodiversity. The farmed animals’ sector is a major contributor to these changes, and box 2 provides some examples of how some diseases may have either emerged or increased in prevalence because of it.

Box 2: Examples of vector-borne and viral diseases that may have become more prevalent because of environmental changes caused in part by the farmed animals’ sector.

Concerns with the emergence of zoonoses are not limited to the farmed animals’ sector, but extend also to other animal products that are consumed by human beings. One of the most well-known zoonoses is HIV/AIDS: HIV-1 is thought to have emerged from SIVcpz, a simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) found in a sub-species of chimpanzee ( Pan troglodytes troglodytes ) ( Peeters et al. 1989 ); HIV-2 is thought to stem from SIVsmm, an SIV found in the sooty mangabey ( Cercocebus atys ) ( Marx et al. 1991 ; Ka-Wai Hui 2006 ). Both HIV strains are likely to have emerged from human contact with the blood of infected chimpanzees and sooty mangabeys, possibly through butchering practices ( Chitnis et al. 2000 ).

Finally, influenzas (flus) are viral diseases that have regained prominence in recent years. Flu viruses are categorised in A, B, and C types. B and C types are relatively mild and undergo changes through antigenic drift, the normal process of flu viruses’ genetic mutation. The A type flu viruses, however, also undergo changes through antigenic shift, which involves a rapid change caused by genetic mixing between different subtypes, resulting in the creation of flus that can be relatively severe as human beings may not have come into contact with these new strains before. Though not many people have been killed by recent outbreaks, flus have had a devastating effect on many people in the 20th century through three pandemics: the 1918 (‘Spanish influenza’) H1N1 virus, the 1957 (‘Asian influenza’) H2N2 virus, and the 1968 (‘Hong Kong influenza’) H3N2 virus pandemics. The first one of these was particularly memorable, as it has been estimated to have killed up to 40 million people in 1918–20, or about 3% of the world population. Research has shown that the emergence of these flus stemmed from human interactions with other animals ( Taubenberger et al. 2005 ; Belshe 2005 ), raising the question whether viral diseases that have emerged more recently in close connection with animal farming practices might trigger disease in large numbers of people. Box 3 provides some prominent examples of such viral diseases directly associated with the farmed animals’ sector.

Box 3: Examples of zoonotic viral diseases directly associated with the farmed animals’ sector.

As high populations of farmed animals are maintained only because of human demand for their products, many consumers of animal products are more likely to impose diseases upon other human beings compared to those who refrain from such consumption: the probability that those who consume animal products will facilitate the emergence of a zoonotic disease that would cause illness and kill a large number of people is much higher than the probability that those who consume plant products will do so ( B. Chen et al. 2009 ). An additional concern is that people who are relatively rich are more likely to consume animal products, whereas people who are relatively poor are more likely to suffer from zoonoses ( Gunderson 2012 ; Karesh et al. 2012 ; Grace 2015 ).

1.3. Land use and degradation

Agriculture occupies about 38% of the earth’s ice-free land, with 26% of ice-free land occupied by grazing and 12% by arable land ( Foley et al. 2011 ). As the land that is used to farm animals includes both grazing and arable land, it has been estimated that the farmed animals’ sector occupies about 70–75% of all agricultural land ( Steinfeld et al. 2006 ; Foley et al. 2011 ). About one third of the earth’s soil surface is unsuitable for arable production, though it either is or could be used for grazing or browsing ( Penning de Vries et al. 1995 ). Provided that farmed animals eat plants that are not suitable for human consumption and do not rely (heavily) on feed, diets that include animal products need not necessarily use more land than could be used to feed the human population directly. In recognition of this fact, the opinion has been expressed that the ability of some farmed animals to turn plants that humans cannot eat into foods that people can eat ‘may become increasingly important in terms of global food security’ ( Gill et al. 2010 , 330). In reality, however, it is known that a lot of arable land is used to feed farmed animals; this is known principally by the fact that about 35% of the global harvest of cereals has been fed to farmed animals in recent years ( Alexandratos and Bruinsma 2012 , 71; Foley et al. 2011 ). In a study carried out in 2006, it was found that the area dedicated to this land use amounted to 400 million hectares (ha), or 4 million square kilometres, an area that is equivalent to the surface area of the 27 countries that then constituted the European Union ( Aiking et al. 2006 , 171).

The fact that a lot of arable land is used globally to feed farmed animals does not imply that this is the case right across the world. In many poorer countries most grain is consumed directly by people. Most nations in Africa and Asia allocate more than 80% of their arable land to the purpose of feeding people. Accordingly, it has been argued that in countries such as Kenya and Egypt, the current mixed agricultural system provides more human food compared to what a vegan system might provide, as the farmed animals in these countries rely mainly on resources that could not be used for direct human consumption ( CAST 1999 ). For a similar reason and because the significant unpredictability of rainfall limits arable farming, it has been argued that ‘milking animals … are crucial for maintaining human nutritional welfare in the drylands’ of people living in Djibouti, Eritrea, Somalia, and Ethiopia, the countries that make up the Horn of Africa ( Morton and Kerven 2013 , 25).

In many more affluent countries, by contrast, large quantities of grain are fed to farmed animals. In North America and Europe, for example, only about 40% of all arable land is used to feed people. In addition, some affluent nations also use some of the land of less prosperous nations to feed their farmed animals: as land and labour costs are lower in poorer nations, the large agribusinesses that control a significant part of the farmed animals’ sector benefit from sourcing some of their feed from poorer nations, in spite of the costs associated with transportation ( Smil 2005 ). Some of this feed is grown on land that might have (had) more value by not being cultivated (for example, some rainforests) or by growing food crops. This is a growing concern as the amount of arable land that is being used to feed farmed animals is increasing rapidly. This is caused by the following factors: the explosion in the consumption of animal products; the fact that the greatest growth is not seen in the consumption of ruminants, but in the consumption of products from pigs and chickens (‘monogastrics’) who depend almost exclusively on feed in dominant farming systems; and the fact that a growing number of ruminants are being fed arable crops as substantial components of their diets ( Weis 2013 ).

The use of arable land to feed farmed animals is very inefficient. This inefficiency varies between different areas and farming systems, depending on social and ecological conditions. In the context of farming in the USA at the dawn of this millennium, Smil (2002) calculated that 4.5 kg of feed is required to produce 1 kg of flesh from chickens, 9.4 kg of feed for 1 kg of flesh from pigs, and 25 kg of feed for 1 kg of flesh from feedlot-fed cows. Though chickens are the best converters of plant-to-animal-protein of all the main animals reared for their flesh, about 78% of all the plant protein that was fed to a chicken in the USA about a decade ago was not converted to protein that is eaten by human beings.

Accordingly, several studies (see box 4 ) have concluded that there are significant differences in the land requirements of different diets, depending on both the amount and the kinds of animal products that they include, with diets that include animal products generally requiring more land compared to diets that exclude them ( Baroni et al. 2007 ; Reijnders and Soret 2003 ; Peters et al. 2007 ).

Box 4: Evidence that diets that include animal products generally use more land.

In general, diets that include farmed animal products also contribute more to land degradation than diets that exclude them. The authors of the LEAD study claim that about 20% of the world’s pastures and rangelands are degraded through overgrazing, compaction, and erosion caused by farmed animals ( Steinfeld et al. 2006 ). What is ignored by the authors of this study is what may well turn into the most important issue associated with future strategies to counter land degradation: the loss of phosphorus obtained from mined rock phosphate, a key ingredient in most mineral fertilisers. Although the quality of reserves of rock phosphate is declining and mining costs are increasing, a recent study has estimated that the reserves that remain could be used up by the end of the century and that they could reach a peak (maximum rate) of use by 2033 ( Cordell et al. 2009 ). The continent with the greatest food insecurities at the present time, Africa, exports more phosphate rock than any other continent, and a large and increasing percentage of phosphate rock is devoted to the farmed animals’ sector, either through the cultivation of crops for feed or through feed supplementation. The production of fertilisers from phosphate rock yields large quantities of phosphogypsum, a toxic by-product that contains radionuclides of uranium and thorium. Some of these, as well as cadmium, end up in the soil when crushed rock phosphate is applied directly to it, as well as when processed phosphate fertilisers are applied that contain smaller quantities of these elements. Furthermore, although phosphorus can, unlike oil, be recovered and reused, large quantities of phosphorus leak from agricultural land. Long-term food security is therefore jeopardised both by soil pollution from phosphate rock and by the fact that remaining reserves are dwindling ( Cordell et al. 2009 ; Wallis 2014 ).

Other than being undermined by the toxic components of mineral rock phosphates, soil fertility can also be compromised by other practices associated with the farming of animals. Apart from cadmium, some soils are polluted by other metals used in the farming of animals, for example by the zinc, copper, and arsenicals used as feed additives, as well as by veterinary medicines. The fertility of some soils is also jeopardised by nutrient loading—the accumulation of nutrients in the soil—caused by the application of excessive quantities of manure and fertilisers. Nutrient excesses have been documented to be particularly large in China, Northern India, the USA, and Western Europe ( Foley et al. 2011 ). Over the long term, the soil is acidified by such excesses, resulting in reduced plant growth. Ammonia (NH 3 ) emissions also contribute to soil acidification, and about two thirds of anthropogenic ammonia emissions have been estimated to be produced by the farming of animals ( Steinfeld et al. 2006 ). Ammonia acidifies the soil by combining with oxygen to form nitrogen oxide (NO x ) and nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), which can then combine with water and oxygen to produce nitric acid (HNO 3 ) and deposit as acid rain; as many ecosystems comprise organisms that cannot cope with the surplus nitrogen, this process also contributes to biodiversity losses. Nutrient loading, mentioned above, is a problem that is growing as more farmed animals are reared further away from their feed sources. An increasing number of animals are also reared in crowded facilities, which have been associated with relatively poor waste management practices due to their high concentrations of waste ( Garnett 2009 ). Some soils are also waterlogged by a range of irrigation methods that are used by the farmed animals’ sector to produce animal feed. Irrigation also contributes to salinisation, the mobilisation and accumulation of salts that are naturally occurring in soils. The salt scalds that are thus formed on top of the ground undermine soil productivity, restricting plant growth ( Trout 2000 ).

A large amount of land also degrades through deforestation. Deforestation causes many land problems, including those associated with salinisation—the removal of trees allows ground water to rise, thus mobilising salt. Deforestation also leads to the erosion of fertile topsoil as most of the fertility of the soil that is found in rainforests is due to the soil being held together by trees. In 2000, Goodland and Pimentel (2000) estimated that about 60% of deforestation took place to make room for animal farming. Current expansion of agricultural farm land is mainly taking place in tropical areas. Tropical forests are very rich in biodiversity and provide many important ecosystem services. It has been estimated that about 80% of all new croplands in the tropics are situated in areas that used to be forests ( Gibbs et al. 2010 ).

A large number of these are devoted to the production of animal feed, mainly in the shape of soybeans, the cultivation of which doubled to 22 million ha in the decade leading up to 2004 ( Elferink et al. 2007 ) and then increased further, up to more than 111 million ha (yielding just over 276 million tonnes of beans) in 2013, a year in which more than 1 billion tonnes of maize was also grown, a large percentage of which, again, was used to feed animals ( FAO 2015 ). Whereas the area that is devoted to growing maize has not increased as much as that used to grow soybeans, it has been estimated that it has grown by around 50% in the last 50 years ( Weis 2013 ). The increases in yields of these two main animal feeds do not simply reflect increases in acreage—the former in fact surpass the latter increases, as global yield increases of soybeans and maize have, respectively, octupled and quadrupled over this same period of the last 50 years ( Weis 2013 ). Most of the soybeans that are grown worldwide are crushed, producing 18.6% soy oil and 78.7% soy meal (as well as some waste), and—although the oil is used in a wide range of products (including biofuels)—almost all the meal is currently used to feed farmed animals ( van Gelder et al. 2008 ). It has been estimated that only about 6% of all soybeans that are grown are directly consumed by people ( Oliveira 2015 ). Though soybeans stimulate rapid growth of farmed animals because of their high protein content, by current yields they require more land relative to other crops that are grown to feed animals per unit of animal product ( Elferink and Nonhebel 2007 ). In 2013, for example, about twice as much land was needed to produce soybeans as was needed to produce a similar mass of maize ( FAO 2015 ). Brazil is a major producer of soybeans and a growing producer of animal flesh, and box 5 provides a good illustration of how the farmed animals’ sector affects deforestation in a country with such large areas of remaining forests.

Box 5: The farmed animals’ sector and deforestation in Brazil.

To obtain a good picture of how much protein is used by the farmed animals’ sector, I have calculated how many human beings could be nourished from the soybean meal that is fed to farmed animals if they consumed this meal directly, using the facts that roughly 20 kg of protein is recommended per human being annually and that 44% of the content of soybean meal is protein ( Wallis 2014 ). In the European Union, 440 million people could satisfy all their annual protein requirements if we use a conservative estimate of the amount of soybean meal (20 million tonnes) that is imported annually by the European Union to feed farmed animals. This is almost 90% of the number of people living in the European Union. In the case of Australia, 11 million people could satisfy all their annual protein needs merely by the amount of soybean meal that it imports annually (at least half a million tonnes), which equates to about half of its human population.

In this survey I have shown that, on average, the farmed animals’ sector uses more land to produce a unit of food than other agricultural sectors require to produce a similar quantity of food. In many situations, the sector also degrades more land than other agricultural sectors either are or would be degrading to produce a fixed unit of food. Finally, the case study of Brazil shows that a large proportion of the recent expansion of the farmed animals’ sector has occurred in areas that are relatively rich in biodiversity.

1.4. Water use and pollution

The virtual water content of an entity is the amount of water that is required to produce it, which is captured by its water footprint ( Hoekstra and Chapagain 2007 ). When talking about water, it is useful to distinguish between ‘blue’, ‘grey’, and ‘green’ water. The ‘blue water’ footprint of an entity refers to the volume of surface water and groundwater that is used—measured in terms of the surface water or groundwater that is lost—in its production; the ‘green water’ footprint stands for the rainwater that is consumed (excluding runoff) by the entity; and the ‘grey water’ footprint refers to the volume of freshwater that is required to assimilate the pollutants of the entity in question, based on existing ambient water quality standards ( Mekonnen and Hoekstra 2012 , 402). These distinctions are useful to highlight the fact that not all uses of water are equally problematic in terms of their negative GHIs.

Problems associated with water scarcity have particularly led to greater scrutiny of sectors that use large amounts of blue water. As many water sources are being emptied faster than the rate by which the hydrological cycle can refill them, a lot of blue water is used at unsustainable rates. Deforestation can also have a major impact upon the availability of water, as the loss of canopies reduces the soil’s humus content and reduces local precipitation, resulting in reduced infiltration and water storage. Deforestation also makes the land more susceptible to fire, thereby increasing greenhouse gas emissions as well. It therefore contributes to climate change and its associated problems, including the loss of water from mountains that are losing snow and ice because of global warming.

The LEAD study estimates that the farmed animals’ sector accounts for more than 8% of global human water use ( Steinfeld et al. 2006 ). Not only does the sector use water to hydrate animals, to manage manure, and to clean animal housing, but—as soil compaction reduces infiltration rates—grazing animals and the use of heavy agricultural machinery also reduce the replenishment of freshwater sources by lowering water tables ( Kirchmann and Thorvaldsson 2000 ). Though water usage in the sector varies between animals, their feed, the technologies that are used to obtain their products, and the ecosystems in which they live, are killed, and are prepared for human consumption, the production of farmed animal products generally requires more water compared to the production of other foods with similar nutritional content ( Hoekstra and Chapagain 2007 ; Marlow et al. 2009 ; WWAP 2009 ). The sector accounts for 29% of the total water footprint from agriculture, which stems in large part (98%) from the water it uses to feed the animals: 1,463 Gm 3 /year for crops, and 913 Gm 3 /year for feed from grazing ( Mekonnen and Hoekstra 2012 ). The total footprint for feed from crops amounts to 20% of the total water footprint of all crop production in the world, or 12% of the total blue water footprint of all crops ( Mekonnen and Hoekstra 2012 ).

Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2012 , 405) also reveal that the annual production of animal flesh, in tonnes, requires the following global averages of water: 4,300 m 3 /tonne for the flesh from chickens; 5,500 m 3 /tonne for the flesh from goats; 6,000 m 3 /tonne for the flesh from pigs; 10,400 m 3 /tonne for the flesh from sheep; and 15,400 m 3 /tonne for the flesh from cows, bulls, and steers. Per gram of protein, the water footprint of cows’ milk, of eggs, and of chickens’ bodies was estimated to be about 1.5 times larger than that of pulses, whereas for the flesh from cows, bulls, and steers, it was 6 times larger than the latter ( Mekonnen and Hoekstra 2012 , 410). The authors add that, with the exception of chickens, who rely heavily on feed regardless of whether they are kept in more extensive or more intensive systems, blue and green water usage increases hand in hand with intensification (in ‘industrial systems’), as intensive systems rely more on the use of arable crops to feed animals. Where animals use grazing land that could not be used more efficiently for other purposes without substantial difficulties, the fact that they use a lot of water may not be such a problem, particularly if they rely mainly on green water. However, water scarcity is a growing concern, which is why the increasing usage of blue and grey water is particularly problematic.

Importantly, the global averages calculated by Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2012) exclude the grey water footprint associated with the treatment of a range of pollutants, including animal waste, pesticides, fertilisers other than nitrogen fertilisers, and other agrochemicals. One source of the farmed animals’ sector’s pollution is the soil that ends up in water through the erosion and sedimentation caused by farmed animals, either indirectly, through the deforestation that takes place for the expansion of the farmed animals’ sector, or directly. Another problem is the creation of ‘dead zones’: the nitrogen compounds and the phosphorus excreted by animals, together with the application of excessive quantities of fertilisers to grow their feed, overfertilise rivers and seas and cause the algae that live in them to grow rapidly, a process known as eutrophication. When these short-lived algae die, they decompose; because any biological decomposition consumes oxygen, this causes oxygen depletion (hypoxia) of rivers and seas, leading to the suffocation of aquatic ecosystems ( Eshel and Martin 2009 ). Eutrophication also causes human health concerns, for example by contributing to the development of Pfiesteria piscicida , an aquatic organism that not only kills fish but can also cause human health problems ( Burkholder and Glasgow 2001 ). As an increasing number of animals are kept in confined systems that are far removed from nutrient-deficient fields that might benefit from the nutrients provided by their manure and urine, eutrophication is increasing ( Smil 2002 ).

A further problem is the formation of nitrates from manure and artificial fertilisers. These nitrates can leach into drinking water supplies and filter through into the groundwater. The health effects of nitrate ingestion are the subject of considerable debate, as some studies have linked the human ingestion of nitrates with the occurrence of cancers and methaemoglobinaemia ( Powlson et al. 2008 ; Katan 2009 ). Since many animals are fed from crops grown on arable land, of which large parts are devoted to monocultures, many methods used to farm animals increase the spread of pests and plant diseases, a well-documented problem associated with monocultures. This frequently leads farmers to use large quantities of pesticides—some of which are known to be harmful to human health—thus contributing to the development of pesticide resistance and to the presence of harmful pesticide residues in water and food ( Koller et al. 2012 ; Matthews 2006 ).

Water is also polluted by the use of antibiotics and hormones, the latter of which are used to promote growth. Recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) is a hormone used in the USA, where it is administered to some dairy cows. It is unclear whether the use of these types of hormones might pose human health risks, but disruptions in the endocrine systems of several species of other animals have been associated with their use ( Hotchkiss et al. 2008 ). Though its use is prohibited in the European Union and in many other countries, some other nations have allowed rBST. Other pollutants are the detergents, disinfectants, and antiparasitic agents that are used by the farmed animals’ sector. Whereas some pathogens are undermined by some pollutants, others, for example Cryptosporidium , thrive in water polluted by the farmed animals’ sector ( Duffy and Moriarty 2003 ; Burkholder et al. 2007 ).

Though this is not intended to be a complete survey of all the water issues raised by the consumption of animal products, the negative water impacts associated with some forms of aquaculture must not be forgotten either, especially as about half of all fish who are currently consumed by human beings are produced in aquaculture systems ( Bergqvist and Gunnarson 2013 , 76). Some methods used to farm fish can be associated with relatively small negative water impacts; this is the case, for example, of the use of herbivorous species such as the common carp ( Cyprinus carpio ) or species of tilapia in small ponds ( Bergqvist and Gunnarson 2013 , 95). Others, however, have been associated with relatively large negative water impacts because of their use of algicides, fertilisers, pesticides, nutrients that cause eutrophication, (prophylactic) antibiotics, and other drugs that these methods use to raise fish ( D. Cole et al. 2009 ; Bergqvist and Gunnarson 2013 ). The destruction of ecosystems associated with some forms of aquaculture also presents a growing concern. An example that has received some attention from academic scholars is the destruction of mangrove swamps in South East Asia that is taking place to meet the increasing demand—mainly from Western consumers—for shrimps, and its effects on coral reefs ( Hendrickson et al. 2008 , 320).

This survey shows that the farmed animals’ sector uses a relatively large proportion of freshwater compared to other agricultural sectors and that it contributes significantly to water pollution. Though diets that include products from pasture-fed animals may save water if they rely mainly on rainwater, dietary shifts towards vegan diets could also save large volumes of water and reduce water pollution in many situations.

1.5. The use of fossil fuels and atmospheric pollution

Diets that include animal products generally require more fossil fuels than diets that exclude them. The reason for this stems in part from the fact that a large proportion of the plants that are eaten by animals are not converted into food that people can or want to eat, but are merely used to keep the animals alive, as well as to produce manure and urine. Whereas the proportion of an animal that is actually consumed varies depending on the nature of the animal in question, one example of this inefficiency is provided by Loughnan (2012 , 106), who estimates that 65% of the weight of a steer may not be consumed.

The explosion in the consumption of animal products that has occurred over the last century was facilitated to a large extent by the invention of the Haber–Bosch process, which is crucial in the production of artificial fertilisers. This process, which uses energy to capture nitrogen from the air, has been identified as the key factor in the exponential growth of the world population since its commercialisation in 1913 ( Smil 2001 ). In addition, crop losses have been reduced significantly through the development and application of pesticides. What artificial fertilisers and most pesticides have in common is that their production uses large quantities of oil and gas ( Hanlon and McCartney 2008 ).

Apart from relying on large quantities of fossil fuels, the farmed animals’ sector contributes significantly to a wide range of problems caused by atmospheric pollution, particularly because of the sector’s rapidly increasing greenhouse gas emissions. The LEAD study calculated the relative share of emissions produced by the farmed animals’ sector, claiming that the sector produced 18% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in CO 2 -equivalents (CO 2 e) in 2002 ( Steinfeld et al. 2006 ). The CO 2 e of a substance measures its radiative forcing (or, less technically, its global warming) potential in units of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). It stands for the amount of heat trapped by a quantity of gas as a factor of the heat trapped by one unit of a similar mass of CO 2 .

Whereas a later, more detailed FAO study found that the total estimate provided by the LEAD study was ‘in line with’ the total estimate for the year 2005 ( Gerber et al. 2013 , 15), the former estimate has also been challenged: one study claims that the farmed animals’ sector emitted 51% of all emissions in CO 2 e in 2009 ( Goodland and Anhang 2009 ). The main reasons for this significant difference from the LEAD study are attributed to the following issues: that the LEAD study did not include respiration as a source of emissions; that it undercounted the number of farmed animals (for example, by excluding farmed fish); that it overlooked some emissions produced by the production, distribution, and disposal of animal products, their by-products, and their packaging; that it ignored the emissions produced by the medical and pharmaceutical industries in their fight against diseases associated with the farmed animals’ sector; and that an inappropriate CO 2 e of 23, rather than the more appropriate figure of 72, was used for methane. With regard to this last reason, the authors justify their figure by pointing out that a 20-year timeframe (with CO 2 e of 72) must be used for calculation rather than a 100-year timeframe, ‘because of both the large effect that methane reductions can have within 20 years and the serious climate disruption expected within 20 years if no significant reduction of greenhouse gases is achieved’ ( Goodland and Anhang 2009 , 13). The authors of the study also point out that the LEAD study ignored the opportunity costs associated with the fact that a lot of land (26% of grassland and 33% of arable land) that is used by the farmed animals’ sector could regenerate as forest and capture much more carbon through photosynthesis ( Goodland and Anhang 2009 , 13).

The 51% figure provided by Goodland and Anhang (2009) has been contested. One study claims that respiration should not be included within the count as the CO 2 that farmed animals produce by respiring would have ended up in the atmosphere anyway by the decay of the plants that would not have been consumed by farmed animals anymore ( Herrero et al. 2011 ). Goodland and Anhang (2012) have retorted by saying that this ignores that the earth’s photosynthetic capacity cannot balance out all the carbon that is respired by farmed animals; the problem lies in the fact that the sector contributes to a loss in photosynthetic capacity through deforestation and forest burning, thus reducing the earth’s ability to absorb carbon from the atmosphere. Goodland and Anhang (2012) do not explain, however, how they determined that respiration exceeds photosynthesis, resulting in a carbon loss. A second point made by the Herrero et al. (2011 ) study is that Goodland and Anhang (2009) factored in the opportunity costs of the farmed animals’ sector, but not of other human activities that reduce carbon capture opportunities, for example urban development. This criticism is entirely justified. Goodland and Anhang (2012 , 254) have also responded to this point, stating that they ‘used a minimal figure for foregone carbon absorption in land set aside for livestock and feed production when the true figure would be much higher’. The problem with this is that they neither explain what this claim is based on nor how it would compare with the true figures for other domains of human activity.

In light of this lack of clarity, box 6 relies on data provided by the LEAD study and the later FAO study to provide a more detailed sketch of the most prominent contributing factors of the farmed animals’ sector to climate change ( Steinfeld et al. 2006 ; Gerber et al. 2013 ).

Box 6: How does the farmed animals’ sector contribute to climate change?

Whereas my focus has been on the farmed animals’ sector, we must not ignore the fact that many human diets also include products derived from animals who have not been farmed, particularly fish. Many diets that include fish who have been caught in the wild are associated with relatively high emissions compared to plant-based diets. Eshel and Martin (2006) estimate that typical Western diets, which include fish, are more inefficient compared to plant-based diets, especially since long-distance boat journeys are associated with the catching of fish preferred by Western customers. This long travelling distance is the reason for the high emissions of cod fishing calculated by Carlsson-Kanyama and González (2009 , 1707S). A more general study was carried out by Reijnders and Soret (2003 , 667S), who claim that, in Western Europe, trawler fishing—the prevailing fishing method in the area—uses 14 times more fossil fuels than would be used to produce an equal amount of plant protein. This figure excludes the high emissions that are frequently produced to process fish, for example the emissions produced by canning and refrigeration ( Basurko et al. 2013 ).

The consumption of some fish, such as herbivorous fish kept in ponds that are situated close to consumers, can be associated with relatively small quantities of emissions. Many forms of aquaculture, however, are associated with serious concerns because of the emissions associated with their use of pesticides, prophylactic antibiotics, and nutrients that contribute to eutrophication, particularly their use of other fish as feed ( D. Cole et al. 2009 ; Naylor et al. 2009 ). More generally, about one third of all the fish who are caught has been estimated to be used to feed farmed animals, which is why many diets that include the latter are associated with large emissions ( Goldburg and Naylor 2005 , 23).

Though figures on the magnitude of its contribution vary between different studies, it is clear that current human consumption of animal products contributes a great deal to climate change. The extent to which this might be mitigated will vary greatly with the alternatives that are envisaged.

One alternative that has been proposed is to reduce methane emissions by dietary or pharmaceutical interventions, but Webster (2013 , 41–43) mentions that these interventions raise health concerns for the animals who might be affected. Rather than modify ruminant fermentation, a better strategy might be to reduce the number of ruminants. At the same time, however, it must be borne in mind that any reduction in the number of farmed animals is likely to trigger an increase in wild and feral animals who would occupy some of the freed-up space. However, though some of these would also produce methane, a reduction in the number of farmed animals is still likely to be accompanied by a decrease in methane emissions.

This is so for various reasons. Firstly, populations of wild and feral animals tend to be less dense compared to those of farmed animals. Secondly, the metabolic rates of these animals would be slower compared to those of many farmed animals—for example compared to cows (such as the Holstein-Friesian breed) who have been bred to produce large quantities of milk—thus reducing methane emissions. And thirdly, many ruminants would be replaced by animals who do not ruminate. In Australia, for example, reductions in the populations of sheep and cows would be likely to be accompanied by a growth in the number of kangaroos, who produce far fewer greenhouse gas emissions ( Hoedt et al. 2015 ). Drastic reductions may not be achieved everywhere, however, depending on which animals might replace farmed animals. In the USA, for example, methane emissions might still be high if farmed animals are replaced by the animals who roamed across the land before the arrival of European colonisers. One study calculates that, if it is assumed that there were about 50 million bison before the arrival of European colonisers, methane emissions from bison, elk, and deer may have been about 86% of current methane emissions from farmed ruminants ( Hristov 2012 ). This is in line with another study, which argues that current ruminant methane production in the USA is probably no more than 20% greater than what it was 300 years ago (when the author estimates there may have been 60 million bison), which is partly attributable to the fact that ruminants kept in feedlots—also known as feed yards—produce less methane ( Webster 2013 , 43).

Webster (2013 , 43) adds the valid point that a focus on mere emissions of methane or of other gases is inadequate in light of the fact that the total impact of the animals concerned on the quantities of detrimental gases in the atmosphere must be considered. In this regard, Webster (2013 , 195) points at recent research into the potentially positive role played by grazers, who ingest silica which is then excreted to end up in rivers and eventually in the sea to feed diatoms, a particular type of algae, which take up carbon dioxide by photosynthesis ( Mike Packer 2009 ). The idea is that greater numbers of grazers lead to greater quantities of silica in the sea, which in turn triggers an increase in the number of diatoms and a greater capture of carbon dioxide ( Carey and Fulweiler 2015 ; Vandevenne et al. 2013 ). Whereas Webster (2013 , 43)’s claim that ‘well-managed grasslands constitute a significant carbon sink’ is contested as a necessary condition for this to be the case is that they must have been managed relatively badly beforehand (see e.g. P. Smith 2014 ), to assess the real potential of grasslands to reduce negative climate change impacts more research is needed to compare this type of management with how other ways in which the land could be managed might affect the concentration of different gases in the atmosphere.

Some have also suggested that the numbers of current populations of some farmed animals could be reduced by the replacement of some animal products that are associated with high emissions by other foods that have been derived from animals and production chains that produce fewer emissions, for example grasshoppers and other insects ( Vogel 2010 ). Meyers (2013 , 119), for example, has argued that ‘we ought to engage in and encourage entomophagy , the practice of eating insects’. He arrives at this conclusion in light of the claim that ‘ten kilograms of plant food yields only three kilograms of pork and only one kilogram of beef’, but to ‘about nine kilograms of insect meat’, which is partly because ‘insects are cold-blooded’ and ‘do not waste fuel keeping their bodies warm’ ( Meyers 2013 , 124). To this he adds that many insects produce far fewer emissions and can eat things that human beings cannot eat. Before sharing in Meyers’ excitement, however, we would need not only more precise ecological impact assessments of how different insect-rearing practices affect the environment, but also to address whether grasshoppers and other insects should be valued instrumentally for human consumption, a question that will be addressed in chapter two .

Many scholars have argued that radical changes in human diets are required in light of the significant contributions of the farmed animals’ sector to problems caused by climate change ( Macdiarmid et al. 2012 ; Scarborough et al. 2012b ; McMichael et al. 2007 ). More generally, I shall argue in section 1.6 that such changes are required in light of all the negative GHIs that have been described. A range of websites now exist that provide people with the tools to calculate some of the environmental impacts associated with their food choices, such as the Agri-footprint website ( http://agri-footprint.com ) and the UNS website ( http://www.ulme.ethz.ch , in German). Without wishing to endorse any of these, the usage of this type of websites may help readers to calculate the environmental impacts of their dietary choices, as well as guide dietary policy-making.

1.6. The moral imperative to reduce negative GHIs

The question of what counts as a good diet should be considered in light of the question of what counts as a diet that minimises negative GHIs (or maximises positive GHIs). In light of the dietary impacts that have been described previously, individuals and governments that take seriously the imperative to safeguard the right of all human beings to health care must encourage citizens to minimise dietary negative GHIs. Many negative GHIs should be allowed to be produced provided that positive GHIs are maximised. For example, in the case of the cultivation of rice, the fact that rice requires much more water than many other crops may be outweighed by the greater nutritional benefits of its consumption relative to other crops that could be grown, by local soil and climatic conditions, by the greater cultural meaning of rice, or by a combination of any of these factors. This example also shows that negative and positive GHIs that are difficult to quantify should not be excluded from our moral evaluations—for example the amount of pleasure that people derive from eating particular foods, the degrees of importance that they give to particular risks and uncertainties (for example those related to zoonotic diseases), the benefits that some people derive from the traction power or from the aesthetic values that some animals may provide, or any deontological constraints that should be accepted to safeguard moral agents’ duties to strive for holistic health, for example those related to any duties that we may have towards other animals.

People may disagree about whether moral agents have a duty to prioritise more important over less important interests (or a duty to maximise positive GHIs) and about which impacts should count as positive or negative GHIs. However, in my view, there is overwhelming evidence to substantiate the view that many people, particularly those who live in relatively affluent countries, produce negative GHIs that ought to be avoided. In earlier work I suggested that those who contribute to the emergence and spread of zoonoses by consuming a wide range of animal products produce negative GHIs that ought to be avoided ( Deckers 2011b ). Elsewhere I provided a positive answer to the question whether the consumption of some animal products contributes to the existence of human hunger ( Deckers 2011c ). This is borne out at least partly by the fact that the consumption of many animal products contributes to the increase in human hunger that is triggered by one domain of human activity that is being taken increasingly seriously: anthropogenic climate change.

The evidence that can be provided to support the view that many people produce merely through their contributions to climate change negative GHIs that ought to be reduced is overwhelming. Climate change is expected to become more and more dangerous if the average global surface temperature increases by more than 2°C relative to pre-industrial times. According to a study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases was about 375 ppm (parts per million) in CO 2 e in 2005, and concentrations will have to stabilise at or below that level to avoid a more than 2°C warming relative to the pre-industrial age ( IPCC 2007a , 20). If this is the case, global anthropogenic emissions must be cut by 50–85% relative to the 2000 level by 2050 ( Shellnhuber et al. 2006 ; European Commission 2007 ). The IPCC claims with ‘high confidence’—which is defined in terms of an 8 out of 10 chance—that, if we continue with a business-as-usual emissions policy, millions of people will suffer from negative health impacts associated with climate change ( IPCC 2007b , 48). In Southern Asia, for example, the health status of millions of people has already been compromised through flooding, which has been reported to happen ‘more frequently and more severely than before’ ( Douglas 2009 , 127). The more the agricultural sector contributes to climate change, the more agriculture itself will be jeopardised by the adverse effects that have been associated with climate change, including increased droughts and floods. Several studies indicate that these problems will manifest themselves more in countries where people currently are relatively poor, thereby increasing the risks of their rights to health care being jeopardised ( P. Smith et al. 2007 ; Lang and Heasman 2004 ; Parry et al. 2007 ; Stern 2006 ).

In light of these concerns, many governments have recognised the moral case for radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. By passing the Climate Change Act 2008 , the UK Parliament, for example, has committed to reducing emissions by 80% by 2050, relative to emission levels in 1990 ( Climate Change Act 2008 ). Similarly, the Australian Government has expressed the view that an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 relative to emission levels in 2000 would represent ‘a fair contribution from Australia’ ( DCCEE 2011 , xi).

Greenhouse gas emissions, however, are not the only things that matter morally. The development of a broader understanding of the negative GHIs associated with many human activities is facilitated by the notion of ‘ecological footprint’ ( Wackernagel and Rees 1996 ). This concept was coined by Wackernagel and Rees (1996) to represent the ‘amount of biologically productive land and water area an individual, a city, a country, a region, or all of humanity uses to produce the resources it consumes and to absorb the waste it generates under current technology and resource management practices’ ( Kitzes and Wackernagel 2009 , 813; Rees 2003 , 898). Though materials that are neither created nor absorbed by biological processes, such as plastics, are not represented, ‘ecological footprinting’ does include the effects that such materials have on biological systems ( Kitzes and Wackernagel 2009 , 814). Carbon dioxide emissions are included within ecological footprints by calculating the area of forest that would be required to assimilate those emissions, an approach that has been criticised not only because there are other ways in which these emissions could be sequestered, but also because the used conversion rates are debatable ( Van den Bergh and Verbruggen 1999 ). A similar problem underlies the calculation of the ecological footprint associated with the use of nuclear energy, which has been equalised with the amount of forest that would be required to offset the CO 2 -equivalent of nuclear energy ( Moran et al. 2009 , 1943).

In spite of these limitations, the ecological footprint provides useful information to assess the magnitudes of some of our negative GHIs because of its inclusion of a broad range of ecological parameters. Whereas the GHI concept measures the impact of human actions on the health of all biological organisms in one common unit, the concept of ecological footprint measures the impact of human activities on the nonhuman environment in one common unit: the use of ‘bio-productive’ (biologically productive) space, or the quantity of biological resources that is used to provide for any particular human activity. This is usually expressed in terms of ‘global hectares’ (‘gha’), the amount of land that is needed to produce any particular thing that is consumed and to deal with its waste using currently available technologies at average global productivity. Whilst health is affected by much more than by the use of bio-productive space, it has nevertheless been claimed that the ecological footprint is ‘the most comprehensive and most widely adopted overall measure of threats to environmental sustainability’, and this indicator has been understood as one of the most important ways to measure the impact of ‘environmental stressors’ on human health ( Dietz et al. 2009 , 118; Dwyer 2009 ). As such stressors also affect the health of nonhuman organisms, the ecological footprint of humans is also concerning for those who question our impact on the nonhuman world.

The fact that our collective ecological footprint is large provides a very strong indication that our negative GHIs are substantial. In 2008, 2.7 gha was the ecological footprint of the average person, but the amount of biologically productive water and land that was available in that year per person was calculated to be no more than 1.8 gha ( WWF 2012 , 44, 48). On this basis, Rees (2006a) has used Catton (1980) ’s concept of ‘overshoot’ to refer to the fact that resources derived from biological organisms are consumed faster than the rate by which they are replenished. Great differences between different people’s ecological footprints can be observed. In 2008, the average Bangladeshi used less than 1 gha, whereas the average person from many more affluent countries, such as Denmark, the USA, the UK, or Australia, used more than 4 gha ( WWF 2012 , 43). In addition, the USA combines a very large national ecological footprint with a significant increase in population ( Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1997 , 1198).

Both our collective ecological footprint and the existence of large differences between people’s individual footprints are morally questionable. The problem with the former is that future generations will have to try to secure their rights to health care whilst reducing their ecological footprints substantially. Future generations might well be able to find novel ways to safeguard their rights, even if their ‘earth capacity’ will be much reduced. However, the probability that the rights of many future people will be compromised is great as the odds are stacked against many of our future fellows. Take for example the people of Bangladesh: no clear answer has as yet been provided in relation to the question of how they will be protected from the likelihood of the large-scale flooding of coastal zones that is either caused or increased by anthropogenic climate change. Similarly, the health status of many Bangladeshis who are alive today has already been affected negatively by the November 2007 floods, which are likely to have been caused wholly or partially by anthropogenic climate change ( Afjal Hossain et al. 2012 ). The fact that some people satisfy many desires that are not strictly necessary to enjoy a decent standard of health and thereby accumulate large ecological footprints causes severe problems for other people whose rights to health care are undermined.

We must therefore address not only what overshooting countries should do to reduce their ecological deficit, but also how many resources and how much waste each of us should be allowed to, respectively, consume and produce, and how many children we should have, without jeopardising the rights to health care of others unfairly. To help with this task, ecological footprint calculators that gauge individuals’ footprints are useful. However, it must be recognised that the ecological footprint is no more than an aid, rather than the ultimate criterion to determine the morality of human actions. Clearly, some activities may be detrimental to the health of biological organisms, even if they use relatively few resources and produce little waste. An example would be killing someone, which might be considered positive if our sole aim was to reduce the ecological footprint of the entire human population. This example shows that a relatively large negative GHI (such as that of killing someone) need not be associated with a relatively large ecological footprint. The reverse also holds true. A relatively large ecological footprint need not be associated with a relatively large negative GHI. Compare, for example, the ecological footprint of a factory that produces shoes at a greater ecological footprint per shoe than a factory that produces shoes at a smaller ecological footprint. Should the former produce shoes that are significantly better for human health, for example by reducing bacterial infections, its average GHI per produced shoe might be more positive than the latter’s. In spite of these considerations, the ecological footprint provides an important indicator of ecological stresses that may jeopardise human rights to health care.

In light of the magnitude of our ecological footprint, some ethicists have claimed that the occurrence of ‘more hunger’ is a certainty ( Gjerris et al. 2011 , 346). Rather than adopt such a pessimistic stance, I argue that negative GHIs that are not needed to fulfil our duties must be eliminated.

1.7. Reducing negative GHIs through dietary changes

A small but increasing number of studies have argued that dietary changes are required to reduce a wide range of negative GHIs associated with our dietary choices ( Reijnders and Soret 2003 ; Carlsson-Kanyama and González 2009 ; Baroni et al. 2007 ; Peters et al. 2007 ; Compassion 2007 ; Eshel and Martin 2009 ; Macdiarmid et al. 2012 ; Scarborough et al. 2012b ). Some studies compare vegan with omnivorous diets ( Eshel and Martin 2006 ; Carlsson-Kanyama and González 2009 ; J. Davis et al. 2010 ; Berners-Lee et al. 2012 ). Readers who wish to engage with these studies in detail are referred to box 7 . A systematic analysis of peer-reviewed studies that report the land requirements and the emissions of 49 dietary options provides some indication that a transition to vegan diets in the European Union might reduce total greenhouse gas emissions by up to 20% and the demand for land needed to fulfil human dietary requirements by up to 60%, but the authors are rightly cautious about these claims as the review does not consider how non-diet related environmental impacts, for example those associated with leather replacements or the associated changes in health care costs, might be affected by such a transition ( Hallström et al. 2015 ). A further reason why caution is needed is that most studies that compare different dietary scenarios consider vegan diets that are relatively unprocessed, where more emissions are likely to be produced by more processed vegan diets. A more general reason to be cautious is that there is a great deal of uncertainty associated with the impacts of a radically transformed agricultural system. In spite of this need for caution, it is clear that many people who consume animal products produce many more negative GHIs by doing so compared to those who abstain from doing so, and that dietary shifts towards vegan diets could reduce negative GHIs considerably.

Box 7: Comparing the negative GHIs associated with omnivorous and vegan diets.

1.8. The case for a radical transformation of agriculture

Though some vegan diets produce fewer negative GHIs than other diets, two obstacles manifest themselves when the results of the studies that I have discussed in the previous section are used to stimulate dietary change towards veganism. The first is that they measure a limited number of negative GHIs that are associated with current production systems, rather than the negative GHIs that might be produced by very different agricultural systems. Future vegan diets would be very different from those that are adopted by vegans living today if they were accompanied by a shift—whether more or less radical—from our current mixed agricultural farming system towards a vegan system. Such a system would, for example, require very different methods to maintain or improve soil fertility, including a much greater reliance on the use of green manures (plants that are grown to provide manure for other plants) and human manure and urine, the latter of which are now frequently wasted, causing losses of nitrogen and—more importantly—phosphorus. The use of green manure could also be accompanied by the use of plant-based anaerobic digestion, which would produce digestate that is rich in nitrogen to stimulate plant growth and methane that could be used for energy purposes. It has also been remarked that such a system would need to rely more on chemical fertilisers ( Korthals 2012 ); whereas this need not be the case if both green and human manures are used, there is no doubt that a radical shift to a vegan-organic system would pose a significant challenge in relation to the goal of maintaining and boosting soil fertility ( Darlington 2010 ).

Reliable studies of how shifts to vegan diets might reduce negative GHIs must therefore incorporate estimates of the negative GHIs that might be produced by very different agricultural systems, where relatively little may as yet be known about how such systems might perform. Such estimates, however, would be highly relevant. For example, to determine whether sufficient fruits and vegetables would be available to provide for healthy diets in a particular location, it is important to know what kinds of foods could be grown in that area and how much they might yield. This does not imply that locally sourced diets will always produce the least negative GHIs, particularly as it has been shown that current transportation of foods accounts for a relatively small percentage of their greenhouse gas emissions ( Weber and Matthews 2008 ; González et al. 2011 ).

The second problem is that we should not ignore the possibility that a reduction of negative GHIs in one domain of human activity might increase negative GHIs in another domain, or even overall. What we eat affects many other things. Accordingly, the negative GHIs of human diets should not be isolated from the negative GHIs of other human activities, for example the production of footwear. Should the adoption of a predominantly vegan agricultural system be associated with a decline in the supply of leather, for example, people would need to increase their production of non-leather shoes. Any uncertainties related to what kinds of shoes might be produced and how this might be done result in difficulties to estimate these shoes’ potential negative GHIs.

The existence of these uncertainties might persuade some to favour conservative strategies that support (the development of) production systems that reduce the negative GHIs associated with the consumption of animal products, rather than to support strategies that aim to reduce their consumption as such. Many strategies could be adopted to reduce the negative GHIs associated with the consumption of animal products, including better manure management, changing from warm-blooded to more efficient cold-blooded animals, reducing negative GHIs associated with the slaughtering of animals and the distribution of their products, improving breeds of farmed animals and of plants used for their feed (for example through the genetic engineering of animals and plants), and developing lab-grown (also known as cultured, synthetic, or in-vitro) flesh. In a study funded by New Harvest, an organisation that supports this last technology, it is claimed that in-vitro flesh that is assumed to be able to be cultivated by using cyanobacteria as a growth medium might lower energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and land and water usage very substantially compared to conventionally produced flesh in Europe, but the authors also point out that its public acceptance may be marred by public concerns over its unnaturalness ( Tuomisto and de Mattos 2011 ), a theme that will be explored in section 2.12 . Empirical research, however, has found that this is not the only thing that people are concerned about regarding in-vitro flesh, and that their concerns include issues of safety and taste ( Hocquette et al. 2015 ; Laestadius and Caldwell 2015 ).

Whereas some of these technologies may reduce some negative GHIs considerably, the LEAD study has claimed that ‘the environmental impact of livestock production will worsen dramatically … in the absence of major corrective features’ ( Steinfeld et al. 2006 , 275). If this is so, it must be doubted whether approaches that merely aim at changing production will be sufficient, particularly since many studies estimate that reducing the sector’s environmental impacts may turn out to be rather difficult ( Weidema et al. 2008 ; Wirsenius and Hedenus 2010 ; McMichael et al. 2007 ). With regard to the sector’s greenhouse gas emissions, for example, it has been claimed that a 20–25% reduction per unit of product derived from the bodies of animals might be possible ( Weidema et al. 2008 ; DeAngelo et al. 2006 ). However, it must be doubted whether even modest reductions could be achieved, at least in the short term. A working group on agriculture for the IPCC concluded that ‘little progress has been made in the implementation of mitigation measures at the global scale’ ( P. Smith et al. 2007 , 500). Though the past may not be an accurate basis from which to predict the future, reducing the negative GHIs associated with the consumption of animal products significantly per unit of product may be difficult. Any technological progress that may be achieved must be situated within the context of future agriculture, which will be compromised by the negative impacts that have been produced in the past, including the decline in reserves of rock phosphate and fossil fuels, loss of soil fertility, land degradation, and water scarcity and pollution, as well as the negative impacts associated with atmospheric pollution. Any technological advances that might be made also rely on investments in science and its infrastructure, thus increasing emissions in the short term.

Even if significant reductions per unit of product might be achievable, the rapid adoption of diets that include (a greater quantity of) animal products is problematic in light of the fact that the human population is growing at an unprecedented rate, resulting in an increased demand for food ( World Bank 2008 ; Royal Society 2009 ). On the basis of recent demographic and consumption trends, the LEAD study predicts that global demand for farmed animals’ products will double by 2050 relative to the production level in 2000 ( Steinfeld et al. 2006 , 275). If this demand materialises, significant reductions in negative GHIs per unit of product may fail to bring about an overall reduction of negative GHIs. The argument has been made, however, that there is limited potential for further expansion of agricultural land, and that food increases will therefore have to come mainly from land that is in production already ( Lal 2009 ). This may be difficult, especially because the gap between actual yields and maximum yields under ideal growing conditions is rather small in many countries ( J. Huang et al. 2002 ). Whilst crop yields increased by 56% between 1965 and 1985, Foley et al. (2011) found that they only increased by 20% between 1985 and 2005. Indeed, serious questions have been raised over whether higher yields could be obtained without compromising long-term sustainability, particularly because these even higher yields are likely to be associated with large losses of phosphates and nitrogen ( Smil 2011 ).

A further reason why merely reducing negative GHIs per unit of animal product does not go far enough relates to the fact that human beings need other things apart from food, for example energy. To replace fossil fuels, it is likely that an increasing amount of land will be required to provide energy in the future. The World Bank (2009) predicts that by 2030 even as much as 40% of our global grain production could be used as biofuels. Though this prediction may be wrong, the increase in pressure on agricultural resources from the energy sector provides further evidence to suggest that many diets that include relatively large quantities of animal products are highly problematic.

Clearly, conservative attempts to reduce dietary negative GHIs merely by altering production methods are grossly insufficient. I mentioned before that the UK Parliament, for example, has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% relative to its emissions in 1990 ( Climate Change Act 2008 ). To obtain a better understanding of how drastic this reduction is, it must be borne in mind that it has been calculated that current dietary emissions in the UK are as high as 2.7 tonnes CO 2 e per person per year, and that those who adopt a vegan diet sourced from within the current food production system have been estimated to reduce their emissions by no more than about 25% ( Berners-Lee et al. 2012 , 190). Given that total consumption-related emissions have been estimated to exceed a UK average of 14 tonnes CO 2 e per year per person ( Aston et al. 2012 ) and that they should total around 2.8 tonnes CO 2 e to reach the 2050 target of an 80% reduction, it is extremely unlikely that this target could be reached if the average person’s allocated quota was to be filled almost entirely by their dietary emissions alone.

Unless dietary changes are made, it would leave the average UK citizen with no more than an allowance of 0.1 tonnes CO 2 e annually for non-diet related sources. The same applies to other citizens who live in countries with similar levels of emissions that may be committed to similar reductions. As such drastic reductions in non-diet related emissions seem totally unrealistic I would like to imagine what the world might look like if everyone who could adopt a diet that did not include animal products without compromising the right to health care of any human being would adopt such a diet. Though the answer to this question will vary between different areas, depending on social and ecological factors, I have selected the example of the United Kingdom, partly because Simon Fairlie (2010) has envisaged what ‘a vegan permaculture’ system might look like if it were adopted in the UK. This system would not only avoid synthetic fertilisers and pesticides, but also produce some biofuels, as well as some flax and hemp to produce 7.25 kg in textiles per person per year (replacing the wool and leather that is used for these purposes under the current system).

Fairlie (2010) estimates that such a system would be able to feed about eight people from one hectare of land. As there are currently about 61 million people in the country, approximately 7.7 million ha of the approximately 22 million ha of non-urban land that is available in the UK would be required to feed this population. Each person would be provided with 2,767 kcal of food per day, which is more than the recommended daily intake values ( FAO/WHO/UNU 2001 ), thus allowing for some food waste. However, it can be expected that bodily energy needs would be higher than what they are today, as more people would carry out harder physical work under such a scenario than within the current agricultural system, which relies heavily on fossil fuels through the use of machinery, pesticides, and synthetic fertilisers, thus saving on human labour. More than 14 million ha of non-urban land would be left for non-arable purposes. Though there is no doubt that some of this land would need to be used for human purposes unrelated to food production, including the production of timber and firewood ( Heaton et al. 1999 ), some land that would not be used for arable purposes could nevertheless still be used to produce food, for example by being cropped with fruit trees.

Fairlie’s proposal is modelled largely on the kinds of foods that are currently produced in the UK, that is, cereals, potatoes, sugar, rapeseed oil, dried peas, vegetables, fruit, and nuts, where he envisages that over half of all the arable land would be occupied by cereals, potatoes, and rapeseed (for oil). These crops are currently frequently grown in large monocrops, which are notoriously poor in biodiversity. It is therefore likely that any vegan agricultural system that is more sustainable might look very different from the scenario depicted by Fairlie (2010) . Out of a concern for biodiversity, even if it were valued only to sustain a rather narrow conception of human health, we must move away from the large monocrops that now dominate world food markets, and seek new ways to increase variety through a renewed emphasis on growing (a broader range of) fruits and vegetables. Our current agricultural system jeopardises food security by focusing on a very narrow range of plant foods. The FAO has estimated that 75% of the plant varieties that were cultivated on farms in the beginning of the 20th century were no longer cultivated by its end; that human beings obtain about 60% of their calories from only three plants (rice, maize, and wheat); and that only about 200 of the 250,000 to 300,000 known edible plant species are consumed by us ( FAO 2004 ). Whatever the precise form might be of a UK vegan agricultural system, such a system should increase the range of plants that are consumed and be accompanied by a move away from the few food crops that now dominate the UK, as well as the global, food market.

The negative GHIs that would be associated with such a system would be much smaller than those that are associated with the current UK agricultural system. Some of the benefits of a modified version of the system envisaged by Fairlie (2010) include: the avoidance of pesticides and synthetic fertilisers and a reduction in the use of fossil fuels; a greater diversity of plants grown for food, resulting in more varied diets and greater long-term food security; a reduction in the loss of phosphates and nitrogen and in the eutrophication process associated with such a loss; a reduction in acidification; and greater availability of land that can be reforested to produce timber and firewood. Fairlie’s scenario would also eliminate food imports and must therefore also be amended where a good case exists for the importation of some vegetables and fruits with relatively small negative GHIs.

As omnivorous diets are associated with more negative GHIs than vegan diets in many locations, similar benefits can be expected if the global agricultural system was transformed into a predominantly vegan agricultural system. However, in light of what has been described in the introduction to this chapter, namely that the lives of some people currently depend on using animals, an exclusively vegan agricultural system would not be optimal to minimise negative GHIs unless it could be shown that removing their dependency would decrease negative GHIs. To assess this issue fully, as well as to assess comprehensively whether my case for a radical transformation of agriculture survives further scrutiny, the GHIs associated with any duties we may have towards the nonhuman world must be explored, an issue that will be addressed in chapter two .

1.9. Conclusion

Many human moral agents produce negative GHIs that ought to be avoided, jeopardising the rights to health care that are possessed by all human beings. Although not all diets that include animal products result in relatively large negative GHIs, I have shown that, in many eco-social settings, diets that include animal products produce more negative GHIs than vegan diets. Using the UK as an example, I argued that a wide range of diet-related negative GHIs could be reduced significantly if current agriculture was transformed into a predominantly vegan agricultural system. As I have ignored the GHIs of different human diets on the entities that make up the nonhuman world, it might be possible that the greater negative GHIs associated with many omnivorous diets are outweighed by the greater positive GHIs that such diets produce on the nonhuman world. The chapter that follows aims to document the GHIs that have so far been ignored to provide a holistic picture of the GHIs associated with human diets. Without this picture, it is not possible to assess which diets compromise each moral agent’s duty to safeguard their holistic health. The conclusions that have been drawn here, however, stand firm in light of an assessment of all the interests that must be tended to in order to fulfil one’s holistic health care duty.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA. This license allows for copying any part of the work for personal and commercial use, providing author attribution is clearly stated.

Monographs, or book chapters, which are outputs of Wellcome Trust funding have been made freely available as part of the Wellcome Trust's open access policy

• Cite this Page Deckers J. Animal (De)liberation: Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned? London: Ubiquity Press; 2016. Chapter One, The Consumption of Animal Products and the Human Right to Health Care.
• PDF version of this title (5.4M)

In this Page

• Introduction
• Land use and degradation
• Water use and pollution
• The use of fossil fuels and atmospheric pollution
• The moral imperative to reduce negative GHIs
• Reducing negative GHIs through dietary changes
• The case for a radical transformation of agriculture

Other titles in this collection

• Wellcome Trust–Funded Monographs and Book Chapters

Recent Activity

• The Consumption of Animal Products and the Human Right to Health Care - Animal (... The Consumption of Animal Products and the Human Right to Health Care - Animal (De)liberation: Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned?

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Animal Essay

500 Words Essay on Animal

Animals carry a lot of importance in our lives. They offer humans with food and many other things. For instance, we consume meat, eggs, dairy products. Further, we use animals as a pet too. They are of great help to handicaps. Thus, through the animal essay, we will take a look at these creatures and their importance.

Types of Animals

First of all, all kinds of living organisms which are eukaryotes and compose of numerous cells and can sexually reproduce are known as animals. All animals have a unique role to play in maintaining the balance of nature.

A lot of animal species exist in both, land and water. As a result, each of them has a purpose for their existence. The animals divide into specific groups in biology. Amphibians are those which can live on both, land and water.

Reptiles are cold-blooded animals which have scales on their body. Further, mammals are ones which give birth to their offspring in the womb and have mammary glands. Birds are animals whose forelimbs evolve into wings and their body is covered with feather.

They lay eggs to give birth. Fishes have fins and not limbs. They breathe through gills in water. Further, insects are mostly six-legged or more. Thus, these are the kinds of animals present on earth.

Importance of Animals

Animals play an essential role in human life and planet earth. Ever since an early time, humans have been using animals for their benefit. Earlier, they came in use for transportation purposes.

Further, they also come in use for food, hunting and protection. Humans use oxen for farming. Animals also come in use as companions to humans. For instance, dogs come in use to guide the physically challenged people as well as old people.

In research laboratories, animals come in use for drug testing. Rats and rabbits are mostly tested upon. These researches are useful in predicting any future diseases outbreaks. Thus, we can protect us from possible harm.

Astronomers also use animals to do their research. They also come in use for other purposes. Animals have use in various sports like racing, polo and more. In addition, they also have use in other fields.

They also come in use in recreational activities. For instance, there are circuses and then people also come door to door to display the tricks by animals to entertain children. Further, they also come in use for police forces like detection dogs.

Similarly, we also ride on them for a joyride. Horses, elephants, camels and more come in use for this purpose. Thus, they have a lot of importance in our lives.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Conclusion of Animal Essay

Thus, animals play an important role on our planet earth and in human lives. Therefore, it is our duty as humans to protect animals for a better future. Otherwise, the human race will not be able to survive without the help of the other animals.

FAQ on Animal Essay

Question 1: Why are animals are important?

Answer 1: All animals play an important role in the ecosystem. Some of them help to bring out the nutrients from the cycle whereas the others help in decomposition, carbon, and nitrogen cycle. In other words, all kinds of animals, insects, and even microorganisms play a role in the ecosystem.

Question 2: How can we protect animals?

Answer 2: We can protect animals by adopting them. Further, one can also volunteer if one does not have the means to help. Moreover, donating to wildlife reserves can help. Most importantly, we must start buying responsibly to avoid companies which harm animals to make their products.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Emotions
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature

Bibliography

• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Culture
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Society
• Law and Politics
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Oncology
• Medical Toxicology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Games
• Computer Security
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Cognitive Psychology
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business History
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Methodology
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Theory
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

11 Arguments for Consuming Animal Products

Bob Fischer is Assistant Professor in the Department of Philosophy at Texas State University.

• Published: 11 January 2018
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

What can be said in favor of consuming animal products? This chapter surveys the options, with special focus on attempts to exploit pro-vegan principles for anti-vegan ends. Utilitarian, rights-based, contractualist, and agrarian proposals are explored, as well as some recent arguments that attempt to revive a form of speciesism. Ultimately, the chapter considers how such arguments might inform a broad case for consuming animal products—that is, one that might earn respect from those in a variety of moral camps—and it suggests that there may be good reasons to eat roadkill, bugs, bivalves, in vitro meat, animal products that will be wasted, and the bodies and byproducts of animals that live full, pleasant lives.

Introduction

If you ask the man on the street to justify his meat consumption, he’ll probably say that it’s necessary for health reasons; and if he doesn’t say that, he’ll probably say either that it’s natural, nice, or normal. At least, that’s what you’d expect based on a recent study, which found that 91% of respondents offered one of these answers. 1

Of course, they aren’t particularly good answers. Rather than meat being necessary, it seems that the opposite is true: for most people, there are health benefits associated with well-planned vegetarian and vegan diets. 2 Meat-eating is, of course, about as natural as anything else that humans do, but so are many other behaviors that we’d be loath to defend, likewise for what’s normal. Finally, the “niceness” in question is gustatory, which we may as well acknowledge. But that’s hardly much of a defense: not paying your tab is also very pleasant, but that doesn’t settle whether you may.

We could, of course, be more charitable to the man on the street. However, given all we know—or ought to know—about the ugliness of animal agriculture, it isn’t clear that charity is due. 3 These are pat answers, and if we’re going to defend eating animals, we need better ones.

So what can be said in favor of consuming animal products? (This includes meat, of course, as well as all the products derived from animals: eggs, milk, gelatin, etc.) In what follows, I survey the options. You can sort these arguments in a few ways. First, some purport to show that we ought to consume (at least some) animal products, though most want the weaker claim that we may. Second, you can divide up the argument based on the practices that they aim to justify. I’m aware of only two arguments for the status quo in animal agriculture—namely, Peter Carruthers’s and Timothy Hsiao’s defenses of factory farming 4 —but there are many other ways to secure meat, dairy, and eggs. Most philosophers focus on small-scale, “animal-friendly” agriculture, the face of which is often Joel Salatin’s Polyface Farms, made famous by Michael Pollan. 5 But there are, in addition, defenses of eating insects, oysters, roadkill, and wild animals, as well as many offhand remarks about the permissibility of consuming food that would otherwise go to waste. 6 Third, you can categorize arguments based on whether the empirical assumptions they employ—e.g., whether animals have certain morally interesting capacities, or whether “animal-friendly” agriculture is environmentally sustainable (by some standard or other). Finally, you can divvy up arguments based on their moral form: consequentialist, rights-based, contractarian, biocentric, and so on.

There are practical advantages and disadvantages to each of these taxonomies. Here, I divvy things up using the last strategy—moral form—since that’s probably the most intuitive for the likely readership of this volume. Still, we shouldn’t forget these other taxonomies. They’re particularly useful for thinking through the challenges facing a broad case for consuming animal products—that is, one that might earn respect from those in a variety of moral camps. I’ll conclude by trying to make just such a case.

Arguments for Consuming Animal Products

Utilitarians and rights-theorists have been the most vocal animal advocates. It might be surprising, then, to learn that most defenses of eating animals have drawn on utilitarian or rights-based considerations. But it shouldn’t be: a good way to criticize pro-vegetarian or pro-vegan arguments is to show that they lead elsewhere, as some philosophers have contended. After devoting sections to these two frameworks, I’ll discuss alternative approaches.

Utilitarian Arguments

There seems to be a strong utilitarian argument against eating animals. We get pleasure from eating them, but the pleasure is not nearly as much as the pain they suffer in the process. They live in miserable conditions, die more slowly and painfully than we might like to think, and outnumber us roughly thirty-three to one. (In the United States, roughly ten billion land animals die each year to feed just over three hundred million people.) Moreover, the environmental costs of animal agriculture are staggering, which affect both humans and animals in all sorts of ways. 7 So if this is a numbers game, it looks like you should be eating veggies instead. 8

An initial problem is that this argument focuses on animal agriculture and so seems not to apply to wild animals. Indeed, some hunters—such as Roger Scruton—think that utilitarianism actually favors their practices. 9 And even if they’re wrong, that may only be because of the particular animals they hunt. Joel MacClellan points out that it’s an empirical question as to whether there is an animal such that utility is maximized by killing and eating it. But, he suggests, “It is intuitively plausible . . . that a whale fits [this profile]. Indeed, it would be rather surprising if the pleasure resulting from eating whale meat did not yield higher overall utility than the suffering inflicted on the whale.” 10

But as most people depend on farmed animals for their animal products, let’s set these concerns aside. Still, there are problems. The first involves jumping from claims about the ills of complex institutions to a claim about an individual consumer’s obligation. That is, it may well be true that it’s wrong to raise and slaughter animals in ways that involve massive amounts of suffering, but it doesn’t immediately follow that it’s wrong for a middleman to purchase the products derived from those processes, nor that it’s wrong for a consumer to purchase a can of Spam that has passed through any number intermediaries before landing on the local grocery store’s shelf.

A natural way to criticize the middleman is to observe that if he reduced his demand, the slaughterhouse would reduce its supply. Unfortunately, it isn’t clear that this is so: if Middleman 1 buys less, Middlemen 2 to 10 may well take up the slack. But even if we ignore this issue, we don’t yet have an argument for the wrongness of what the individual consumer does. A grocery store can’t get a single can of Spam from its warehouse; it has to request boxes or maybe entire pallets. The warehouse’s supplier doesn’t deliver individual boxes or pallets but only truckloads. And the supplier’s supplier—which may not be the meat-packing plant itself, but let’s suppose it is—has a strong incentive to produce as much as anyone might buy. Indeed, the people in charge of every link in the supply chain tolerate waste for this reason: they all overbuy (or overproduce) to ensure that they’re always able to sell. What’s more, it would be irrational for them to be sensitive to small fluctuations in the market, since they know that those are inevitable, statistically speaking.

Given as much, it’s implausible that our criticism of Middleman 1 will work against the consumer, whose purchase probably doesn’t make any difference to whether some future animal suffers and dies. Moreover, all the noise in the supply chain makes it unclear whether the consumer’s purchases over the course of his or her life make a difference. The consumer’s actions don’t affect the supply chain cumulatively but rather individually. So if no particular purchase makes a difference, then those purchases don’t make a difference collectively either. It also isn’t clear that, in actual fact, buying a can of Spam makes a difference in tandem with others, so that the consumer would be at least partially responsible for causing future animal suffering. Granted, the market is sensitive to the behavior of large groups, and there is some threshold at which the number of abstainers would influence what happens on the farm. But it isn’t sufficient to have the numbers just anywhere. As John Harris and Richard Galvin point out, you also need these consumers to be both simultaneous and geographically proximate, lest each purchase be lost in the noise of a (temporally or spatially) different supply chain. 11 This, in a nutshell, is the causal impotence problem. 12

We can make it worse by inverting an argument due to Jeremy Garrett. 13 Very roughly, Garrett argues that despite the causal impotence problem, you can be obliged to abstain from animal products thanks to the health benefits of a vegetarian diet. He contends that the extra pleasures you’d have in a life made healthier and longer by a vegetarian diet outweigh any additional gustatory pleasures you might gain by eating animals and their byproducts. So, you should eat a vegetarian diet. However, the evidence only shows that a predominantly vegetarian diet is superior to comparably balanced omnivorous diet in terms of health and longevity. The studies don’t show that a strict vegetarian diet beats a predominantly vegetarian one. Indeed, the occasional consumption of lean meats is probably good for you, and many people clearly enjoy them. Given these benefits, and assuming that the actions of individual consumers make no difference to whether future animals suffer and are slaughtered, the causal impotence problem might not just support the permissibility of eating animal-based foods, but some obligation to be a moderate consumer—what R. M. Hare calls a “demi-vegetarian.” 14

We’ve been considering one problem with the simple utilitarian argument for abstaining from animal products that are derived from agricultural operations. A second serious problem is that the argument ignores the differences between industrial and “animal-friendly” agriculture. You might grant that the suffering in factory farms can’t be justified by the pleasure we gain from eating what emerges from them. But it doesn’t follow that substantially less suffering—say, just what’s involved in slaughter—can’t be justified by our pleasure. 15

This is the basic thought behind the Replaceability Argument, which Peter Singer first offered. 16 The ambitious version goes like this: total welfare isn’t affected by one animal’s death as long as we bring another into existence, and total welfare would be increased insofar as meat-eating benefits us; so, we ought to eat happy animals. An older argument of a similar stripe is “the Logic of the Larder”—so-named by Henry Salt—according to which we do animals a favor by bringing them into existence to be slaughtered for our purposes, since they wouldn’t exist otherwise, and coming into existence is a benefit (at least as long we give them good lives). 17

The merits of these arguments depend, in part, on hard questions about whether and how the welfare of merely possible beings counts in the utilitarian calculus, as well as whether merely possible beings have levels of welfare at all. If these issues can be finessed in ways that favor the Replaceability Argument or the Logic of the Larder, then there remains the charge of speciesism. Suppose, for example, that we were to apply the same line of reasoning to humans. Those with severe cognitive disabilities may well be replaceable in whatever sense a healthy pig is replaceable. What follows? Likewise, may we bring infants into existence as organ donors—as long as their short lives are pleasant—since they wouldn’t exist otherwise, and coming into existence is a benefit?

However the utilitarian handles such challenges, empirical problems remain. First, those who run these arguments rarely factor in the environmental costs of animal agriculture. Second, there are worries about the inefficiency of animal agriculture, which ties up resources that could be devoted to other projects (such as, e.g., famine relief). 18 Finally, even if there are farms where animals do live good lives, it’s unclear whether ordinary consumers are in a position to determine as much. It should come as no surprise that products marketed as humane often aren’t, even from seemingly reputable suppliers. (Whole Foods comes to mind.) If consumers aren’t in a position to make such determinations, it isn’t clear whether these arguments justify their animal product consumption.

It may be better, then, to press a third objection to the simple utilitarian argument. Consider, for example, Steven Davis’s observation that we’ve overlooked certain harms involved in a vegan diet: namely, the harms to animals that are associated with growing plants for food. 19 Some of these harms are intentional, as when farmers shoot woodchucks and rabbits to prevent them from nibbling on their produce; others are unintentional, as when mice are caught in combines, poisoned by pesticides, and so on. Davis goes on to argue that we ought not to be vegans if we want to minimize harm. (This means that Davis isn’t offering a squarely utilitarian argument, of course, but it could be reworked as one.) He estimates that, if the US population were to go vegan, 1.8 billion animals would still die each year as a result of our agricultural practices. But if we were to supplement our diet with cows that forage on open pastures (read: living nice lives), then that number might fall as low as 1.35 billion. Why? Because raising large ruminants on the pasture-forage model is likely to result in fewer animal deaths per hectare. 20

Gaverick Matheny raises some worries about Davis’s math (moral and otherwise); Andy Lamey questions how Davis estimates the harm to wild animals that live in and around farms. 21 But as Lamey points out, these problems show that one particular argument fails, not that Davis’s strategy is a bad one. Vegans—who maintain that it’s wrong to consume animals or animal byproducts—indeed care about minimizing harm to animals. So if the best way to achieve that goal involves eating meat, they have some explaining to do.

One of the major problems with Davis’s argument is that it rests on dubious empirical claims about how many wild animals are currently harmed by plant production, as well as how many wild animals would be harmed under a different regime. However, no one disputes that some wild animals are currently harmed. And this opens the door for a different sort of anti-vegan argument. Suppose we can find a source of meat that isn’t a direct or indirect product of our agricultural practices, and suppose that meat will be wasted if we don’t consume it. Now, might we be obligated to supplement our diet with that meat, thereby reducing our dependence on plant agriculture, and thus reducing the number of wild animals harmed in plant production?

Donald Bruckner thinks so: he contends that we ought to eat roadkill—specifically, large, intact, and recently killed animals. 22 (Think of the deer that wasn’t laid out by the side of the road when you went to the grocery store, but is there now.) To reach this conclusion, he appeals to a principle that David DeGrazia defends, according to which it “is wrong (knowingly) to cause, or support practices that cause extensive, unnecessary harm to animals.” 23 By eating a strict vegan diet, we support practices that cause extensive, unnecessary harm to animals—namely, those in plant agriculture. So, we shouldn’t be strict vegans. What’s the alternative? Well, by scavenging, we cause no harm whatever: the claim isn’t that we should try to hit animals with our cars; the claim is that we shouldn’t let potential food sources go to waste. Scavenging is also no riskier than eating meat from hunted game. As long as it’s fresh, it’s lean, healthy meat. It’s also free, and you can learn how to prepare it by watching a few YouTube videos. So, we should scavenge. (Bruckner’s argument seems to support freegan practices generally—i.e., scavenging from dumpsters as well as highways—but he doesn’t make that point. Also, note that if scavenging is a practical impossibility for certain individuals, then his argument implies that they should still be willing to consume scavenged products when they’re made available to us, as they are at the West Virginia Roadkill Cook-off—an annual celebration of meats sourced from the open road.) 24

We could get another striking conclusion by reworking C. D. Meyers’s argument for entomophagy—eating insects. 25 He focuses on the environmental benefits of consuming bugs. But as long as insects aren’t sentient—the jury’s out, but it doesn’t look good for many of them—you can make the same points about entomophagy being a way to reduce our dependence on plant agriculture. In fact, there are several reasons to think that insects are actually preferable to roadkill. First, anyone can raise and prepare insects. Mealworms and crickets, for example, are readily available from your local pet store, and with the help of a fish tank, some food scraps, and a water source, both species will multiply like mad. Second, they’re easy to process and prepare without any food safety concerns: you just need boiling water, and then your culinary options are open. Third, they’re very good for you: crickets, for example, are a complete protein source that’s low in fat; they’re also high in iron and potassium. Fourth, they’re environmentally friendly: they will take products that would otherwise go to waste and convert them—very efficiently—into nutrient-rich food.

In any case, we could extend Christopher Cox’s brief for eating oysters 26 with a similar, Bruckner-inspired argument. (There is nothing special about oysters. Cox’s reasoning applies equally well to some other bivalves, such as scallops and clams.) We could do the same to bolster G. Owen Schaefer and Julian Savulescu’s defense of consuming in vitro meat. 27 You might even go so far as to extend the argument to “disenhanced” animals. Adam Shriver, for example, contends that we ought to replace current livestock with genetically engineered animals who lack the affective dimension of pain. 28 He doesn’t argue that it’s permissible to eat such animals; he just argues that it’s better than the status quo. But if these animals don’t suffer, and by eating them we could opt out of supporting some plant agriculture, then the same sort of argument might be available. (Whether it is, of course, will depend on empirical details about the mental lives of disenhanced animals, as well as how, exactly, we’re supposed to understand the notion of “welfare.”) 29

Of course, nothing is sacred to utilitarians, so it’s hardly shocking that they might sanction some animal product consumption. It is surprising, however, to find arguments for consuming animal products that concede rights to animals.

One such argument is based on Tom Regan’s version of the rights view. According to Regan, all “subjects of a life” have inherent value, and we “are to treat those individuals who have inherent value in ways that respect their inherent value.” 30 However, Regan qualifies his view with the so-called “liberty principle,” which is designed, inter alia , to handle lifeboat cases:

Provided that all those involved are treated with respect, and assuming that no special considerations obtain, any innocent individual has the right to act to avoid being made worse-off even if doing so harms other innocents. 31

On this basis, Hugh Lehman argues that we can raise and slaughter animals, since many of us are in a lifeboat (proverbially, if not literally):

Humans need a diet which includes a certain range of proteins. For many people, these proteins are obtained by killing and eating animals. Equipping current food production systems to produce vegetarian foods in sufficient quantities would be a massive undertaking as would educating all human beings about alternative sources of nutrients. Until the alternative foods were produced and the education was provided, people would have to continue to eat meat or face death or illness resulting from malnutrition. 32

Kathryn Paxton George is more specific about who’s exempt from the general requirement to abstain from animal products, and the list is long:

(1) infants and children, (2) gestating and lactating women, (3) older women and some older men, (4) allergic individuals and individuals who are predisposed to vitamin and/or mineral deficiencies, (5) undereducated individuals, (6) poor individuals, including people living in countries where selection of food is narrow and erratic, and (7) people who are genetically not predisposed for vegetarianism. 33

These arguments only work if raising and slaughtering animals is compatible with treating them with respect, which is an essential clause in the liberty principle. Frankly, I don’t see how slaughtering an animal is consistent with respecting it. But that aside, those who think they can reconcile these two acts should conceded that these arguments don’t license factory farming, or many practices that are standard even in small-scale agriculture, such as shipping cows without food or water to slaughterhouses, where they arrive dehydrated, weak from hunger, and often with broken bones from their time on the truck. Whatever respect involves, much animal agriculture doesn’t display it.

Moreover, it’s also worth noting that these arguments rest on dubious empirical assumptions about human health, and both Lehman and George seem to present some of the challenges involved in transitioning to a vegan diet as though they were problems with the diet itself. Ultimately, though, the biggest issue has to do with what the liberty principle isn’t—namely, the sum total of morality. Granted, I may be within my moral rights to consume animal products in some circumstances, as the liberty principle implies. But that doesn’t show that I should consume them, or even that I may, depending on what other moral considerations are in play. It might be selfish—and so wrong—for me to consume an animal’s body even though I wouldn’t violate anyone’s rights by consuming it. So Lehman and George won’t get their conclusions without making further assumptions about the other sorts of moral considerations that are relevant to our dietary choices.

Enter Terence Cuneo. He’s prepared to grant that animals have rights, but argues that they don’t clearly have the right “not to be killed for the purpose of providing nourishing food, which provides gustatory pleasure, sustains valued social practices, and provides a viable alternative to factory-farming, assuming that those animals are given excellent lives.” 34 In part, this is because he denies that we can infer that animals have this right from the more basic right not to be killed just for the pleasure of eating them. The suggestion, I take it, is that there may be limits on the burdens that your rights can make others bear, and demanding that people sacrifice nourishment, gustatory pleasure, valued social practices, and a viable alternative to factory farming may be to demand too much.

Additionally, Cuneo offers a historical thought experiment:

Imagine [that the Native Americans who lived in the United States one hundred fifty years ago] were offered the following choice (perhaps by others of their tribe): You may either continue your way of life or stop killing animals and become farmers or merchants. . . . If these people were to take the former option, I take it that their justification for doing so would be very similar to the one offered by conscientious omnivores when asked to justify their position. By killing animals, the native Americans would say, they thereby provide their people with nourishing and delicious food—these activities being at the center of a deeply entrenched and valued way of life. The question to ask is whether they would be wronging the animals they kill if they were to take the first option. It is not apparent that they would. 35

Of course, it’s hard to imagine similar statements being made about the rights of human beings. Those who favor rights-based ethics are unlikely to think that as long as (a) slaves live excellent lives and (b) having slaves makes possible a deeply entrenched and valued way of life, it’s permissible to own other human beings. So we need some story about why the rights of animals function differently than the rights of humans.

If this gap can be filled, then Cuneo might be wise to join forces with George. If we aren’t violating animals’ rights, then we can combine George’s observations about the nutritional needs of infants and children (for example) with the context that Cuneo imagines. So, it might be permissible for infants and children to consume nourishing and tasty animal products, at least if they’re sourced in ways that sustain valued social practices, provide a viable alternative to factory farming, and give animals excellent lives. And crucially, it would be much harder to argue that either they or their parents are vulnerable to the charge of selfishness, eliminating an important challenge to rights-based defenses of eating animals.

Of course, many philosophers deny that animals have rights. Carl Cohen, for example, maintains that if animals had rights, then we would have an obligation to stop lions from killing gazelles. However, we have no such obligation, so they don’t have rights. 36

There have been various replies to this objection. Singer, for example, claims that we shouldn’t intervene to save wild animals because this may cause more harm than good. 37 But at best, this explains why we shouldn’t engage in systematic manipulations of wild environments—it doesn’t explain why we shouldn’t, say, shoot a fox that’s chasing a rabbit, or even more modestly, shoo a cat away from a bird’s nest. These obligations might not strike us as implausible, but it remains the case that it’s hard to postulate animal rights without accepting various more dramatic implications, such as a ban on all non-therapeutic animal experimentation, acknowledging animal property rights (thus seriously curtailing human land use), and perhaps even an obligation to make reparations.

These problems come up because of assumptions about what grounds a being’s moral status (i.e., its right to moral consideration). Both Singer and Regan maintain that the correct status-grounding property is one that is both empirically accessible (i.e., you can’t appeal to souls) and underwrites our considered judgments about what it isn’t permissible to do to human beings. Additionally, they think that the property should explain the wrongness of wrongful acts directly. While they disagree about what the correct property is—Singer thinks that it’s sentience; Regan, being a subject of a life—they both insist that it’s hard to find a property that both meets these conditions and isn’t shared by animals.

Peter Carruthers rejects the demand for direct explanation. 38 That demand is designed to preclude indirect duty views of our obligations to animals. On such views, when it’s wrong to harm animals (and it isn’t always), it isn’t because of some property they have. Instead, it’s because in so doing we either violate the rights of those who own those animals, or deform our characters, or otherwise negatively affect a being that’s a rights-bearer. (Singer and Regan agree that insofar as it’s wrong to harm an animal, it’s primarily because of what it does to the animal—not for one of these other reasons.) So without that demand, Carruthers can develop a form of contractualism that denies direct moral standing to animals. 39 And if we assume that no animal is a rational agent, then it isn’t hard to see why animals wouldn’t have moral standing, since morality just is the set of rules that self-interested and rational agents would accept when reasoning together under idealized conditions. No agent is going to agree to a set of rules on which she has no right to moral consideration, so every agent will have standing. The question then is whether agents have something to gain by granting the same right to animals. Since they probably don’t, they probably wouldn’t.

The trick is to explain why agents would agree that every human should have moral standing, even when the human in question isn’t an agent. Carruthers has several things to say about this. First, the rules have to be psychologically supportable: that is, agents have to be able to endorse them without coercion. And agents probably won’t be able to endorse rules that don’t grant moral status to infants, or those with severe cognitive disabilities, even if self-interest might be served by excluding such individuals. Our sympathies for these beings are too strong. Second, self-interest will lead them to protect the senile and comatose and brain damaged, given that this may well become their fate. And third, contractors have reason to endorse rules that promote virtue in themselves and others, at least insofar as virtue serves the end of the contract process: namely, establishing rules that lead to a stable society. So, there will be a strong presumption in favor of including beings like us, since we’re most likely to become desensitized to harms to one group of humans if we tolerate harms to another group. Carruthers grants that agents might not agree to rules that grant standing to absolutely every human being, but he thinks that the rare exceptions will be tolerable, such as anencephalic infants. The upshot is that (nearly all) humans have the right to moral consideration, no animal has that right, and our obligations to animals are severely limited. In fact, he goes so far as to argue that even factory farming is permissible, since it can’t be ruled out by considerations of character. He claims that “almost any legitimate, non-trivial motive is sufficient to make [an] action separable from a generally cruel or insensitive disposition,” which means that the desire to make a living can excuse factory farmworkers for many of their cruel actions. 40 Presumably, the same point applies to consumers’ desires to be sated by tasty and nutritious animal products, to preserve familial and cultural traditions, and to do so conveniently and inexpensively.

Perhaps the most serious objections to Carruthers’s defense of factory farming are empirical. First, there does seem to be a link between cruelty to animals and cruelty to humans. 41 Second, contractors are bound to consider the environmental costs of industrial animal agriculture. I doubt that these considerations would lead contractors to grant animals rights, but the odds are good that they’ll endorse rules that are much more animal-friendly than Carruthers indicates. So I would expect that roadkill, oysters, and insects would be in, as well as hunted animals and some small-scale agriculture. 42

The New Speciesism, Environmentalism, and Human Goods

At this juncture, it becomes harder to batch arguments. In broadest outline, we can say that the other arguments for consuming animal products reject certain assumptions common to utilitarian and rights-based discussions of animals. First, some philosophers grant that animals have moral standing, but insist that dramatic conclusions don’t follow. This is because they take species membership to be (or to be coextensive with) a morally relevant property. Second, some philosophers approach animal ethics from broadly environmentalist or agrarian perspectives. Finally, some insist that utilitarian and rights-based defenses of animals overlook significant human goods that can stem from hunting and animal husbandry—goods valuable enough to justify ending the lives of animals.

The New Speciesism

There are several defenses of “the new speciesism” now available. 43 These defenses vary widely, and “the new speciesism” label is somewhat misleading. Some reject the assumption that moral reasons are agent-neutral, insisting that privileging species membership is akin to privileging family or friends; just as we have no reason to take up perspectives that would undermine the partiality we show them, we have no reason to take up perspectives that would undermine the partiality we show other humans. 44 Others posit properties that all and only humans have, arguing that they ground our special moral status. 45 Neither position fits with the classic definition of speciesism, which goes back to Richard Ryder, but is best known thanks to Singer’s Animal Liberation . As Ryder and Singer use the term, speciesism is privileging human interests in a morally arbitrary way, in the same way that racists privilege the interests of members of one race in a morally arbitrary way. The new speciesists aren’t defending that position, but since they’ve chosen the “speciesist” label, I’ll follow their lead.

There are two kinds of challenges for the new speciesism. The first is familiar from the problem of marginal cases: either it isn’t plausible that all and only humans have the property in question, or it isn’t plausible that the property grounds a special moral status. However it goes, privileging human beings begins to look like racism and sexism. But the second challenge is the more serious, at least insofar as defenses of preferential treatment for humans are supposed to fend off arguments for either the reform or abolition of animal use. The problem is that it isn’t clear what, exactly, speciesism is supposed to imply.

In Singer’s case, by contrast, it’s clear what the rejection of speciesism is supposed to imply—namely, the failure of one challenge (“But they’re just animals!”) to his use of the principle of equal consideration of interests. However, Singer doesn’t need anything so strong to get abstinence from animal products: animals could matter much less than humans, but still enough that we can’t justify how poorly we treat them. The upshot is that absent additional moral principles, speciesism doesn’t tell us anything about whether it’s permissible to consume animal products. It merely tells us that we get to give extra weight (though no one ever says how much) to human interests because they’re human.

Timothy Hsaio is one of the few who tries to supply the crucial link. He argues as follows:

Moral welfare interests trump nonmoral welfare interests.

Human consumption of meat for the sake of nutrition is a moral welfare interest.

The interests of nonhuman animals in not feeling pain is a nonmoral welfare interest.

Therefore, human consumption of meat for the sake of nutrition trumps the interests of nonhuman animals. 46

Let’s grant the second premise, focusing on the third instead. The argument for it is straightforward. The moral community is composed of those beings with “the root capacity for rational agency.” 47 Animals lack this root capacity, so they aren’t included in the moral community. Harms to those outside the moral community are bad for them, but not morally bad. So, while animals have an interest in not being harmed, theirs is a nonmoral interest. The payoff? Hsaio’s speciesism implies that any human nutritional interest outweighs all interests that nonhuman animals have in not feeling pain. Factory farming is back on the table.

There are at least four problems with this view. First, Hsaio maintains that all and only humans have the root capacity for rational agency, and it isn’t supposed to be a potentiality account. Instead, it rests on a metaphysical assumption—a variety of essentialism. But essentialism in biology has had a rough time after Darwin. Second, in arguing this way Hsaio abandons the project of looking for an empirically accessible status-grounding property. It may well be the case that his metaphysical theory is true, and that the permissibility of animal consumption falls out of it. But since it’s hard enough to secure agreement in ethics without adding in our metaphysical differences, there should be little hope of securing agreement once we do. Third, since nutritional considerations seem to favor well-planned vegan diets, Hsaio’s conclusion may be beside the point. What we need is a defense of our gustatory interests, not our nutritional ones. Finally, the payoff of Hsaio’s view is implausible on its face. Suppose that I would be ever so slightly better nourished by eating a diet containing meat rather than a vegan diet. Suppose that I would feel the same either way, and the difference wouldn’t appreciably affect my long-term health, perhaps because it’s swamped by other factors. Still, in such circumstances I have a nutritional interest in eating meat. Could I justify causing extensive animal suffering for such trivial gains? Presumably not. And yet on Hsaio’s view, I can.

Environmentalism and Agrarianism

Let’s set the new speciesism aside. We get a very different defense of animal consumption from environmentalists and agrarians. For the former, this is often based on rejecting the view that moral standing is an intrinsic property, offering extrinsic, relational accounts instead. Aldo Leopold (1949) , for example, famously claimed that a “thing is right when it preserves the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community.” Here, the biotic community is what matters first and foremost, so it’s no surprise that killing and eating animals can be morally permissible—even morally good—since it’s often in the interest of the biotic community that those animals die. Whatever a biotic community is supposed to be, it’s plain that predation sustains a good deal of it. (Indeed, Ned Hettinger argues that bans on animal consumption are incompatible with the environmentalist outlook, since they’re incompatible with regarding predation as good. This probably isn’t true, as Jennifer Everett shows, but it’s indicative of what matters by the environmentalist’s lights. 48 )

The main problem for naïve versions of biocentricism is that they run the risk of ecofascism. From the perspective of the biotic community, it may well be the case that humans are a scourge on the earth. Does it then follow that most humans ought to be killed?

J. Baird Callicott tries to solve this problem by subsuming biocentricism within a larger, communitarian ethic. This view is “paradigmatically monistic (duties and obligations are generated by community membership) and practically pluralistic (we are simultaneously members of multiple communities—familial, municipal, national, global, mixed, biotic—and so are importuned by multiple and often conflicting duties and obligations, which we are obliged to prioritize for purposes of coherent moral action).” 49 According to Callicott, the communities in which we’re most deeply embedded usually deserve our loyalties first, and more distant spheres of moral obligation trump the more immediate only when the stakes are high. So while there may be a general obligation not to support factory farms, there may also be circumstances in which honoring a host’s hospitality requires eating the factory-farmed meat that he prepared. 50

However, I suspect that the main trouble with this theory, at least when it comes to animal ethics, is the difficulty in seeing what follows from it. True enough, there may be a general-though-defeasible obligation not to support factory farms, and a particular obligation to eat the products that come from them—but we could equally well appeal to community membership to defend extreme positions: for instance, the regular consumption of animal products (“Eating at Cracker Barrel is a family tradition”) and always rejecting hospitality (“As part of the animal advocacy movement, I should always abstain”).

Leopold and Callicott are attempting to offer comprehensive moral frameworks, but some within the environmentalist tradition don’t have such ambitions. We find a less systemic approach in the work of Benjamin Lipscolm, who tries to draw together the threads of Wendell Berry’s agrarianism. 51 Agrarianism is a “back to the land” philosophy (in the popular sense of “philosophy”). It’s an outlook that stresses the virtues involved in coaxing sustenance from the earth, in living in small communities, in the handmade, in understanding—and entering—the rhythm of a particular place. Moreover, Lipscomb notes, this view offers an approach to raising and killing animals on which it can be virtuous:

We can only live by taking life, and [we might] try to reorient our thinking about this. . . . [Some] believe, or seem to believe, that the order by which coyotes prey upon prairie dogs and rabbits and such is a horrific one, one we should abstain from and perhaps even interrupt. It is a temptation . . . to regard the death by which the world lives with mere horror—as not the way things are supposed to be. But to think thus is to be alienated in one’s thinking from the order Darwin uncovered—the order in and by which we live. [We] might try to learn to see our condition, not as a merely fallen, but as one we can inhabit with gratitude. 52

According to Berry, we do have obligations to animals—lots of them, in fact. But those obligations don’t preclude living in intimate, life-taking and life-giving relationships with them. Indeed, animal husbandry emerges as a kind of spiritual practice, a way of embracing the natural order of things. 53

Human Goods

I don’t see why the virtues so dear to agrarians wouldn’t be enhanced by having less violent relationships with animals. After all, we can benefit from animals without killing them—as we do when we eat eggs from hens that have good lives (assuming we can address concerns about the all-too-expendable male chickens, as well as what happens to those hens when they stop laying). In a sense, this is Tzachi Zamir’s basic insight. 54 He argues that, insofar as veganism is based on a rejection of animal use, it also rules out having pets. However, he points out that pet ownership is good for us and for animals, and there’s a difference between use and exploitation. So, we should reject a total ban on animal use, prohibiting only animal exploitation. This means that if we can find non-exploitative methods of animal husbandry, we may consume the products derived from it. 55 Zamir concedes that killing is out, and thus lacto-ovo vegetarianism emerges as the right ideal. We can promote gratitude to animals—or God, or what have you—without a system that says “Thanks” for a chicken’s life some fifteen years before its time.

Still, Berry’s agrarianism—and Callicott’s communitarianism, and Cuneo’s view about the limits of animal rights—raise questions about the costs of giving up meat. This topic hasn’t been much explored, and I suppose it’s possible that there are virtues that can’t be developed without slaughter. If so, it’s worth considering whether this is because some virtues are bound up with particular identities. This could be one way to reply to Christopher Ciocchetti’s fascinating examination of identity-based defenses of meat consumption, where he considers the possibility that our identities provide us with special reasons to act. 56 Ciocchetti concludes that our identities are often more flexible than we think, and we can breathe new life into traditions when we bring them in line with our moral convictions, so identity-based defenses aren’t successful. 57 (Jonathan Safran Foer’s Eating Animals is an excellent example of this: essentially, the entire book is an attempt to explain why he won’t eat his grandmother’s chicken and carrots, which is at the heart of his family’s gatherings, and then to refashion an identity that’s compatible with opting out. 58 ) In the face of Ciocchetti’s work, the task for agrarians is to be more precise about why slaughter is essential to the virtue(s) they value.

Suppose there aren’t any virtues that only slaughter makes available. Still, there certainly are pleasures that are hard to secure without slaughter. This is Loren Lomasky’s concern: he insists that “eating meat contributes to a very great good for human beings without impermissibly impinging on animal well-being.” 59 The “very great good” here is the aesthetic-cum-gustatory pleasure associated with meat consumption and its associated traditions. And he maintains that this can be had without impermissibly impinging on animal well-being because (a) he thinks that we couldn’t get this very great good any other way, (b) he denies that animals have rights, so we aren’t infringing them, and (c) he thinks we just don’t know whether animals suffer very much, so welfare considerations don’t trump our interests.

At least where factory farming is concerned—and Lomasky thinks the point may apply even there—the last claim is false. Slaughterhouse videos have taught us that much. And while there are indeed pleasures distinct to meat-consumption, it isn’t clear that they’re qualitatively superior, which is what Lomasky needs. Lomasky tries to address the latter problem by appealing to Mill’s competent judge test, insisting that, in general, those who’ve tried both vegetarian and omnivorous diets acknowledge the superiority of the latter. “All across the globe the same phenomenon is observed: as incomes increase so does the amount of meat in people’s diets.” 60 Michael Gill objects that we shouldn’t take members of the general population to be competent judges, since they haven’t experienced the best that vegetarian cooking can offer. 61 However, I’m inclined to concede this point to Lomasky. There are gustatory costs to giving up animal products 62 —which, of course, is different from saying that there are moral costs, or that they aren’t ones we should be bear.

Defending Some Animal Product Consumption

What can we borrow from the previous sections to assemble a reasonably coherent case for consuming some animal products? The most important points, I think, are these:

We can’t ignore the harms involved in conventional plant agriculture. 63 This consideration alone doesn’t support eating grass-fed beef, pace Stephen Davis. Still, if we aim to minimize harm—or avoid supporting practices that cause extensive and unnecessary harm, or respect the rights of every experiencing subject-of-a-life—then we have to factor in the costs of eating plants.

Any case for consuming animal products shouldn’t focus exclusively on traditional animal products—meat, dairy, eggs, and fish—or even on animal husbandry. In addition, we need to consider insects, mollusks, animals that die either accidentally or naturally, in vitro meat, animal products that will be discarded if they aren’t consumed, and so on. This means that even if it isn’t possible to defend many traditional animal products, veganism doesn’t follow (either de facto or as an ideal).

We need to acknowledge the environmental costs of animal agriculture, especially of the industrial variety. Some animal products may be hard to justify on this basis alone.

Even if we grant that animals have rights, it takes further argument to show that those rights rule out any particular activity. Of course, a right’s implications often seem to be straightforward: the right to bodily integrity probably implies the right not to have your tail docked or beak trimmed, and it probably follows that people have an obligation not to place pigs and chickens in circumstances where tail-docking and debeaking seem like good ideas. But consider a parallel: the right to bodily integrity probably implies the right not to be spayed or neutered, and it probably follows that people have an obligation not to place animals in circumstances where spaying and neutering seem like good ideas. PETA, for example, advocates for both the right to bodily integrity and the importance of spaying and neutering, so I presume that its leadership sees no tension there. If not, then its leadership must concede that we may do some things to an animal that aren’t directly in its interests. 64 The interesting question concerns the limits of that permission.

Though ahimsa —the virtue of nonviolence—is valuable if anything is, we need to grapple with the possibility that it can be virtuous to embrace your role in the harm you cause (or in which you participate). It seems to me that agrarians and their ilk overstate this point, as I don’t see the value in embracing your role in easily preventable harm. Still, it’s an open question as to what we can virtuously intend when we’re bound to benefit from some harm or other, and we should recall that it’s often hard to settle what is and isn’t virtuous without considering whether there’s a way of life that makes sense of a particular character trait.

We must be careful to distinguish—as Zamir does—between use and exploitation. At the same time, we shouldn’t rule out the possibility that nearly all actual use is exploitative, even if there is a distinction to be drawn in principle.

There are, of course, other interesting moves in the material I’ve canvassed. However, most of the others involve more contentious theoretical assumptions than the ones I’ve identified here, and they’re less valuable for that reason. Insofar as the aim is to justify some animal product consumption to a wide philosophical audience, we should avoid unnecessary assumptions about, say, existence being a benefit (as the Logic of the Larder assumes), or the moral legitimacy of giving preferential treatment to a particular species, or contractualism being the best moral theory.

Given these points, I think the best case for consuming some animal products excludes standard fare—that is, the flesh of cows, chickens, and pigs that were raised to be slaughtered for it long before they’d otherwise die, as well eggs and dairy products that are bound up with the meat industry (more on these qualifications shortly). All the normal concerns apply here: animal welfare, rights violations, huge environmental consequences, the wastefulness of these products, and so on. Indeed, I suspect that welfare concerns condemn many small farms in the United States, partly because so many of them still use regular slaughterhouses instead of mobile slaughter units (MSUs), and so don’t avoid the suffering that comes with transporting animals (broken limbs, dehydration, etc.) or the agonies of industrial slaughter. (MSUs have their own problems, but not these ones.) More important, though, it’s hard to see how small farms evade the charge of exploiting animals, no matter how well they treat them. Animal agriculture involves death on a schedule, and one that serves human interests, not those of the animals killed.

Instead, then, I think the best case for consuming animal products is a defense of eating unusually. Recall Bruckner’s argument. If there’s an available alternative, we shouldn’t support practices that cause extensive and unnecessary harm to animals. By eating a strict vegan diet, we support practices that cause extensive and unnecessary harm to animals—namely, plant agriculture—when eating roadkill is an available alternative. So, we shouldn’t be strict vegans.

Bruckner’s argument generalizes. As far as I can see, the best reason not to eat insects and various bivalves is based on a precautionary principle: even though the evidence suggests that they aren’t sentient, but they might be; since we might be, and the cost of being wrong would be significant, we shouldn’t harm them unnecessarily. But we need to weigh the odds of insect and bivalve sentience against the known costs to animals involved in plant agriculture. Granted, it would be very bad if we were wrong about insects and bivalves, and we then began raising them for food. 65 However, it would be equally bad if we were wrong about plant sentience, and yet we rightly accept this risk: the evidence for plant sentience is weak, and the considerations that tell against positing it are strong. Likewise for the creatures in question. The upshot is that we should weigh the risk of making a mistake in the line-drawing problem (i.e., excluding insects and bivalves when they ought to be included) against the harms to those creatures that are clearly one side of the divide (e.g., the rabbits and field mice that are harmed in crop production). The aim isn’t to limit our moral concern, but to balance moral caution against the moral imperative to respond to plant agriculture’s costs. 66

The same points apply to in vitro meat, and they may also apply to animal products that will be discarded if they aren’t consumed (your roommate’s leftover Kung Pao chicken, which is low-hanging fruit for a freegan). A reasonable reservation about the latter concerns your ability (a) to limit yourself to eating such products just when they really would be thrown away and (b) to influence others to adopt more animal-friendly diets. These are questions to which there are no general answers. Some people have the willpower to opt out based on the provenance of the food; others don’t. Those who do may eat; those who don’t probably shouldn’t. Likewise, some people will be willing and able to explain to those nearby why they’re consuming animal products, turning the occasion into an opportunity to advocate for animals. They’re willing to communicate with words what vegans signal by their abstinence. And, of course, others either won’t be willing or won’t be able to have those conversations, and so should think twice before saving leftovers from the trash.

Someone might worry that eating food that will be thrown out is disrespectful to the animal whose body it was. There are two things to say here. First, it seems equally plausible that not eating leftover animal products is disrespectful to animals that will be harmed in plant agriculture. Second, we aren’t obliged to show respect for animals the way we show respect for humans. It’s a contingent fact about us that we show respect for human beings by not eating their dead bodies. I’ll be the last to object to this state of affairs. Nevertheless, we should recognize that we needn’t have the same practices for animals. Members of many species seem not to be terribly concerned about the dead bodies of their kith and kin, and I see no reason to think that animals care about how their own dead bodies are treated. So, we aren’t violating the interests of surviving or dead animals by consuming those products, which makes it hard to see why eating them has to be disrespectful.

Finally, I think we can defend very limited animal husbandry. I once had a student whose family ran a chicken sanctuary where they took in birds that Austinites no longer wanted. (Backyard chicken farming isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.) The family fed and protected the chickens well, they allowed the birds to live out their natural lives, and they ate some of the eggs that the hens laid. Crucially, this family operates outside the meat industry: there are no concerns about exploiting animals for meat, since they aren’t shortening the chickens’ lives to get access to their bodies. Moreover, there are no concerns about where the male chicks went, as the family couldn’t have prevented their deaths. It seems to me that if there are any examples of use without exploitation, then this is one. And if it is, then it’s permissible. Finally, I can’t see any reason why they shouldn’t sell those eggs to neighbors—at least as long they’re able to resist any temptation to make welfare compromises—since there’s nothing wrong with selling something that it’s permissible to own (assuming that the selling doesn’t lead to other harms).

There is, I think, a good case for eating some animal products, albeit not most of the ones you’ll find at your local restaurant or grocery store. Instead, there appear to be good reasons to eat roadkill, bugs, bivalves, in vitro meat, animal products that will be wasted, and the bodies and byproducts of animals that live full, pleasant lives—that is, it seems we have good reason to eat unusually. What’s more, we can justify such consumption without ignoring the welfare and respect-based concerns that have long motivated those who advocate for animals.

I don’t eat unusually, and I don’t want to start. You might be in the same boat. But I also think that animals matter, recognize the harms involved in plant agriculture, and care about the environment. I think I’ve got some explaining to do.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to the editors of this volume for very helpful comments on earlier drafts of this chapter.

Alward, Peter. “ The Naïve Argument against Moral Vegetarianism. ” Environmental Values 9 ( 2000 ): 81–89.

Google Scholar

Archer, Michael. “Ordering the Vegetarian Meal? There’s More Animal Blood on Your Hands.” The Conversation , December 15, 2011. http://theconversation.edu.au/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659 .

Belshaw, Christopher. “Meat.” In The Moral Complexities of Eating Meat , edited by Ben Bramble and Bob Fischer , 9–29. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015 .

Google Preview

Boonin, David. “ Robbing PETA to Spay Paul: Do Animal Rights Include Reproductive Rights? ” Between the Species 13 ( 2003 ): 1–8.

Bruckner, Donald. “Strict Vegetarianism Is Immoral.” In The Moral Complexities of Eating Meat , edited by Ben Bramble and Bob Fischer , 30–47. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015 .

Budolfson, Mark. “Consumer Ethics, Harm Footprints, and the Empirical Dimensions of Food Choices.” In Philosophy Comes to Dinner: Arguments over the Ethics of Eating , edited by Matthew C. Halteman , Terence Cuneo , and Andrew Chignell , 163–181. New York: Routledge, 2015 .

______. “Is It Wrong to Eat Meat from Factory Farms? If So, Why?” In The Moral Complexities of Eating Meat , edited by Ben Bramble and Bob Fischer , 30–47. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015 .

Callicott, J. Baird. “Animal Liberation: A Triangular Affair.” In In Defense of the Land Ethic: Essays in Environmental Philosophy . Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989 .

______. “The Environmental Omnivore’s Dilemma.” In The Moral Complexities of Eating Meat , edited by Ben Bramble and Bob Fischer , 48–64. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015 .

Carruthers, Peter. “Animal Mentality: Its Character, Extent, and Moral Significance.” In The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics , edited by Tom Beauchamp and R. G. Frey , 373–406. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011 .

______. The Animals Issue: Moral Theory in Practice . New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992 .

______. Consciousness: Essays from a Higher-Order Perspective . New York: Oxford University Press, 2005 .

Cerulli, Tovar.   The Mindful Carnivore: A Vegetarian’s Hunt for Sustenance . New York: Pegasus Books, 2012 .

Chappell, Timothy. “ On the Very Idea of Criteria for Personhood. ” Southern Journal of Philosophy 49 ( 2011 ): 1–27.

Ciocchetti, Christopher. “ Veganism and Living Well. ” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 ( 2012 ): 405–417.

Cohen, Carl. “A Critique of the Alleged Moral Basis of Vegetarianism.” In Food for Thought: The Debate over Eating Meat , edited by Steve Sapontzis , 152–166. Amherst, MA: Prometheus Books, 2004 .

Cox, Christopher. “Consider the Oyster.” Slate , April 7, 2010. http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2010/04/consider_the_oyster.html .

Crisp, Roger. “ Utilitarianism and Vegetarianism. ” International Journal of Applied Philosophy 4 ( 1988 ): 41–49.

Cuneo, Terence. “Conscientious Omnivorism.” In Philosophy Comes to Dinner: Arguments over the Ethics of Eating , edited by Matthew C. Halteman , Terence Cuneo , and Andrew Chignell , 21–38. New York: Routledge, 2015 .

Davis, Steven L. “ The Least Harm Principle May Require that Humans Consume a Diet Containing Large Herbivores, Not a Vegan Diet. ” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16 ( 2003 ): 387–394.

DeGrazia, David. “ Moral Vegetarianism from a Very Broad Basis. ” Journal of Moral Philosophy 6 ( 2009 ): 143–165.

Fairlie, Simon.   Meat: A Benign Extravagance . White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2011 .

Ferré, Frederick. “ Moderation, Morals, and Meat. ” Inquiry 29 ( 1986 ): 391–406.

Fischer, Bob. “ Bugging the Strict Vegan. ” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29 ( 2016 ): 255–263.

Fitzgerald, Amy J. , Linda Kalof , and Thomas Dietz . “ Slaughterhouses and Increased Crime Rates: An Empirical Analysis of the Spillover from ‘the Jungle’ into the Surrounding Community. ” Organization & Environment 22 ( 2009 ): 158–184.

Frey, R. G.   Rights, Killing, and Suffering: Moral Vegetarianism and Applied Ethics . Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1983 .

Garrett, Jeremy R. “ Utilitarianism, Vegetarianism, and Human Health: A Response to the Causal Impotence Objection. ” Journal of Applied Philosophy 24 ( 2007 ): 223–237.

George, Kathryn Paxton.   Animal, Vegetable, or Woman? A Feminist Critique of Ethical Vegetarianism. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000 .

______. “ So Animal a Human . . ., or the Moral Relevance of Being an Omnivore. ” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 3 ( 1990 ): 172–186.

Gill, Michael B. “ On Eating Animals. ” Social Philosophy and Policy 30 ( 2013 ): 201–207.

Gunnarsson, Logi. “ The Great Apes and the Severely Disabled: Moral Status and Thick Evaluative Concepts. ” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 11 ( 2008 ): 305–326.

Hare, R. M. “Why I Am Only a Demi-Vegetarian.” In Essays on Bioethics , by R. M. Hare , 219–236. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993 .

Harris, John Richard , and Richard Galvin . “ ‘Pass the Cocoamone, Please’: Causal Impotence, Opportunistic Vegetarianism and Act-Utilitarianism. ” Ethics, Policy and Environment 15 ( 1993 ): 368–383.

Hettinger, Ned. “Bambi Lovers versus Tree Huggers.” In Food for Thought: The Debate over Eating Meat , edited by Steve Sapontzis , 294–301. Amherst, MA: Prometheus Books, 2004 .

Hsiao, Timothy. “ In Defense of Eating Meat. ” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 ( 2015 ): 277–291.

______. “ Industrial Farming Is Not Cruel to Animals. ” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 30 ( 2017 ): 37–54.

Imhoff, Dan.   The CAFO Reader: The Tragedy of Industrial Animal Factories . Healdsburg, CA: Watershed Media, 2010 .

Kemmerer, Lisa.   Eating Earth: Environmental Ethics and Dietary Choice . New York: Oxford University Press, 2014 .

Lamey, Andy. “ Food Fight! Davis versus Regan on the Ethics of Eating Beef. ” Journal of Social Philosophy 38 ( 2007 ): 331–348.

Lehman, Hugh. “ On the Moral Acceptability of Killing Animals. ” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 1 ( 1988 ): 155–162.

Leopold, Aldo.   A Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There . New York: Oxford University Press, 1949 .

Liao, S. Matthew. “ The Basis of Human Moral Status. ” Journal of Moral Philosophy 7 ( 2010 ): 159–179.

Linzey, Andrew , ed. The Link between Animal Abuse and Human Violence . Eastbourne, UK: Sussex Academic Press, 2009 .

Lipscomb, Benjamin. “‘Eat Responsibly’: Agrarianism and Meat.” In Philosophy Comes to Dinner: Arguments over the Ethics of Eating , edited by Matthew C. Halteman , Terence Cuneo , and Andrew Chignell , 56–72. New York: Routledge, 2015 .

Lomasky, Loren. “ Is It Wrong to Eat Animals? ” Social Philosophy and Policy 30 ( 2013 ): 177–200.

MacClellan, Joel. “ Animal Size, Contributory Causation, and Ethical Vegetarianism. ” Journal of Animal Ethics 3 ( 2013 ): 57–68.

MacLean, Douglas. “ Is ‘Human Being’ a Moral Concept? ” Philosophy & Public Policy Quarterly 30 ( 2010 ): 16–20.

Marder, Michael.   Plant-Thinking: A Philosophy of Vegetal Life . New York: Columbia University Press, 2013 .

Marsh, Kate , Carol Zeuschner , and Angela Saunders . “ Health Implications of a Vegetarian Diet: A Review. ” American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine 6, no. 3 ( 2012 ): 250–267.

Matheny, Gaverick. “ Least Harm: A Defense of Vegetarianism from Steven Davis’s Omnivorous Proposal. ” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16 ( 2003 ): 505–511.

Matheny, Gaverick , and Kai M. A. Chan . “ Human Diets and Animal Welfare: The Illogic of the Larder. ” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 ( 2015 ): 579–594.

McWilliams, James.   The Modern Savage . New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2015 .

Meyers, C. D. “ Why It Is Morally Good to Eat (Certain Kinds of) Meat: The Case for Entomophagy. ” Southwest Philosophy Review 29 ( 2013 ): 119–126.

Norwood, F. Bailey , and Jayson Lusk . Compassion, by the Pound: The Economics of Farm Animal Welfare . New York: Oxford University Press, 2011 .

Piazza, Jared , et al. “ Rationalizing Meat Consumption: The 4Ns. ” Appetite 91 ( 2015 ): 114–128.

Pollan, Michael.   The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals . New York: Penguin Press, 2006 .

Regan, Tom.   The Case for Animal Rights . Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983 .

Rowlands, Mark.   Animal Rights: Moral Theory and Practice . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009 .

Rubio, Julie Hanlon. “ Animals, Evil, and Family Meals. ” Journal of Moral Theology 3 ( 2014 ): 35–53.

Saja, Krzysztof. “ The Moral Footprint of Animal Products. ” Agriculture and Human Values 30 ( 2013 ): 193–202.

Schaefer, G. Owen , and Julian Savulescu . “The Ethics of Producing In Vitro Meat.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 31 ( 2014 ): 188–202.

Schedler, George. “ Does Ethical Meat Eating Maximize Utility? ” Social Theory and Practice 31 ( 2005 ): 499–511.

Schwartz, Judith.   Cows Save the Planet and Other Improbable Ways of Restoring Soil to Heal the Earth . White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2013 .

Scruton, Roger.   Animal Rights and Wrongs . London: Continuum, 2006 .

______. “The Conscientious Carnivore.” In Food for Thought: The Debate over Eating Meat , edited by Steve Sapontzis , 81–91. Amherst, MA: Prometheus Books, 2004 .

Shriver, Adam. “ Knocking Out Pain in Livestock: Can Technology Succeed Where Morality has Stalled? ” Neuroethics 2 ( 2009 ): 115–124.

Singer, Peter.   Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals . New York: HarperCollins, 1975 .

______. Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals . 3d ed. New York: HarperCollins, 2002 .

Smil, Vaclav.   Should We Eat Meat? Evolution and Consequences of Modern Carnivory . Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2013 .

Višak, Tatjana.   Killing Happy Animals: Explorations in Utilitarian Ethics . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013 .

Warren, Mary Anne.   Moral Status: Obligations to Persons and Other Living Things . New York: Oxford University Press, 1997 .

Weir, Jack. “ Unnecessary Pain, Nutrition, and Vegetarianism. ” Between the Species 7 ( 1991 ): 13–26.

Welchman, Jennifer. “ Xenografting, Species Loyalty, and Human Solidarity. ” Journal of Social Philosophy 34 ( 2003 ): 244–255.

Williams, Bernard. “The Human Prejudice.” In Philosophy as a Humanistic Discipline , edited by A. W. Moore , 135–152. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006 .

Zamir, Tzachi. “ Veganism. ” Journal of Social Philosophy 35 ( 2004 ): 367–379.

Zeis, John. “ A Rawlsian Pro-Life Argument against Vegetarianism. ” International Philosophical Quarterly 53 ( 2013 ): 63–71.

Jared Piazza et al., “Rationalizing Meat Consumption: The 4Ns,” Appetite 91 (2015): 114–128 .

For an overview of the evidence, see Kate Marsh , Carol Zeuschner , and Angela Saunders , “Health Implications of a Vegetarian Diet: A Review,” American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine 6, no. 3 (2012): 250–267 . Of course, this isn’t to suggest that limited meat consumption has no health benefits; on this, see Vaclav Smil , Should We Eat Meat? Evolution and Consequences of Modern Carnivory (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2013) .

On industrial animal agriculture, see Dan Imhoff , The CAFO Reader: The Tragedy of Industrial Animal Factories (Healdsburg, CA: Watershed Media, 2010) . On small-scale and backyard operations, see James McWilliams , The Modern Savage (New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2015) .

Peter Carruthers , The Animals Issue: Moral Theory in Practice (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002) ; Timothy Hsiao , “Industrial Farming Is Not Cruel to Animals,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 30 (2017): 37–54 .

Michael Pollan , The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals (New York: Penguin Press, 2006) .

C. D. Meyers , “Why It Is Morally Good to Eat (Certain Kinds of) Meat: The Case for Entomophagy,” Southwest Philosophy Review 29 (2013): 119–126 . Christopher Cox, “Consider the Oyster,”   Slate , April 7, 2010, http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2010/04/consider_the_oyster.html . Donald Bruckner , “Strict Vegetarianism Is Immoral,” in The Moral Complexities of Eating Meat , ed. Ben Bramble and Bob Fischer (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 30–47 . Roger Scruton , Animal Rights and Wrongs (London: Continuum, 2006) .

For details, see Lisa Kemmerer , Eating Earth: Environmental Ethics and Dietary Choice (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014) . The worst environmental consequences are due to factory farming, and the impacts of industrial operations aren’t controversial. However, the debate about small-scale operations is very much alive. Kemmerer is critical based on concerns about methane production as well as land and water use. However, there are those who maintain that there are environmental benefits to raising animals, such as reversing desertification. For an overview, see Judith Schwartz , Cows Save the Planet and Other Improbable Ways of Restoring Soil to Heal the Earth (White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2013) .

I’m assuming that plants aren’t sentient. Michael Marder rejects this, arguing that research on plants suggests the opposite; see his Plant-Thinking: A Philosophy of Vegetal Life (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013) . On this basis, he claims that we should rethink the ethics of eating generally as the process of developing respectful eating practices. Here’s hoping he’s wrong.

Scruton, Animal Rights and Wrongs .

Joel MacClellan , “Animal Size, Contributory Causation, and Ethical Vegetarianism.” Journal of Animal Ethics 3 (2013): 61 . MacClellan overlooks the impact of whaling on the many, many animals that would otherwise feed on whale carcasses, which might tilt the balance in favor of having humans abstain.

John Richard Harris and Richard Galvin , “‘Pass the Cocoamone, Please’: Causal Impotence, Opportunistic Vegetarianism and Act-Utilitarianism,” Ethics, Policy and Environment 15 (2012): 368–383 .

For a fuller statement of the causal impotence problem, see Mark Budolfson , “Is It Wrong to Eat Meat from Factory Farms? If So, Why?” in The Moral Complexities of Eating Meat , ed. Ben Bramble and Bob Fischer (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 30–47 .

Jeremy Garrett , “Utilitarianism, Vegetarianism, and Human Health: A Response to the Causal Impotence Objection,” Journal of Applied Philosophy 24 (2007): 223–237 .

R. M. Hare , “Why I Am Only a Demi-Vegetarian,” in Essays on Bioethics , by R. M. Hare (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 219–236 .

The easiest way to see this involves considering welfare footprint arguments, discussed in most detail in Krzysztof Saja , “The Moral Footprint of Animal Products,” Agriculture and Human Values 30 (2013): 193–202 .

Peter Singer , Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals (New York: HarperCollins, 1975) . For extensive discussion of this argument, see Tatjana Višak , Killing Happy Animals: Explorations in Utilitarian Ethics (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013) .

The Replaceability Argument doesn’t assume that existence is a benefit, and the Logic of the Larder doesn’t assume that sentient beings are replaceable. So they’re clearly distinct arguments. Still, it’s often very hard to know which of these arguments someone has in mind, as remarks along these lines tend to be made rather quickly. You can find arguments in this ballpark in R. G. Frey , Rights, Killing, and Suffering: Moral Vegetarianism and Applied Ethics (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1983) ; Roger Crisp , “Utilitarianism and Vegetarianism,” International Journal of Applied Philosophy 4 (1983): 41–49 ; Hare, “Why I Am Only a Demi-Vegetarian” ; Roger Scruton , “The Conscientious Carnivore,” in Food for Thought: The Debate over Eating Meat , ed. Steve Sapontzis (Amherst, MA: Prometheus Books, 2004), 81–91 ; Christopher Belshaw , “Meat,” in The Moral Complexities of Eating Meat , ed. Ben Bramble and Bob Fischer (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 9–29 —among many, many others.

Not everyone is impressed by the inefficiency argument for abstaining from animal products. For a thoroughgoing critique, see Simon Fairlie , Meat: A Benign Extravagance (White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2011) . It’s worth noting that Fairlie still supports reducing animal product consumption dramatically. Moreover, the consumption he does defend is partly based on backyard agriculture—an unrealistic option for most people.

Steven Davis , “The Least Harm Principle May Require that Humans Consume a Diet Containing Large Herbivores, Not a Vegan Diet,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16 (2003): 387–394 .

For a parallel argument in an Australian context, see Michael Archer, “Ordering the Vegetarian Meal? There’s More Animal Blood on Your Hands,”   The Conversation , December 15, 2011, http://theconversation.edu.au/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659 .

Gaverick Matheny , “Least Harm: A Defense of Vegetarianism from Steven Davis’s Omnivorous Proposal,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16 (2003): 505–511 ; Andy Lamey , “Food Fight! Davis versus Regan on the Ethics of Eating Beef,” Journal of Social Philosophy 38 (2007): 331–348 .

Bruckner, “Strict Vegetarianism Is Immoral.” Bruckner just argues for a conditional: if we accept DeGrazia’s principle, then we ought to collect and consume roadkill. For ease of exposition, though, I’m assuming the conditional’s antecedent, as Bruckner in fact does. And yes: he follows through on the conditional’s consequent.

David DeGrazia , “Moral Vegetarianism from a Very Broad Basis,” Journal of Moral Philosophy 6 (2009): 159 . Again, this isn’t a utilitarian argument, both because of the support clause—which can but needn’t be glossed in utilitarian terms—and because of the restriction to extensive harm. But if there’s a solution to the causal impotence problem, then support can be glossed in utilitarian terms and the argument will go through. If there isn’t, then utilitarian considerations may still support roadkill consumption; recall the inverted version of Garrett’s argument. In any case, DeGrazia’s principle is supposed to be acceptable to those from different moral perspectives, utilitarians included.

Again, Bruckner is only arguing for a conditional: if we accept DeGrazia’s principle, then we ought to collect and consume roadkill. You might worry that if the principle has this implication, then it surely has others, for example, that we shouldn’t be driving (since cars harm animals). I tend to think that this is a mark in favor of the principle rather than a mark against it.

Meyers, “Why It Is Morally Good to Eat (Certain Kinds of) Meat : The Case for Entomophagy.”

Cox, “Consider the Oyster.” Strict vegans will probably balk at eating insects and oysters based on some sort of precautionary principle. However, it’s likely that precautionary arguments actually support eating insects and oysters. For details, see my “Bugging the Strict Vegan,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29 (2016): 255–263 .

G. Owen Schaefer and Julian Savulescu , “The Ethics of Producing In Vitro Meat,” Journal of Applied Philosophy 31 (2014): 188–202 .

Adam Shriver , “Knocking Out Pain in Livestock: Can Technology Succeed Where Morality Has Stalled?” Neuroethics 2 (2013): 115–124 .

Mark Budolfson also argues that we’ve overlooked some of the harms involved in plant agriculture, though not the ones with which Davis is concerned; see his “Consumer Ethics, Harm Footprints, and the Empirical Dimensions of Food Choices,” in Philosophy Comes to Dinner: Arguments over the Ethics of Eating , ed. Matthew C. Halteman , Terence Cuneo , and Andrew Chignell (New York: Routledge, 2015), 163–181 . Suppose our concern is to have the diet with the smallest welfare footprint—or, at least, the one that falls below some threshold. Then, we should note that not every vegan meal beats every meal that includes animal products, since some plant products—such as quinoa, avocados, blueberries—are either associated with environmental harms, or expensive in terms of land or water use, or are harvested in ways that tend to involve the exploitation of migrant labor. This is a fair point, but until we set the relevant threshold, it isn’t clear why that isn’t simply an argument for abstaining from quinoa, avocados, and blueberries. Moreover, if we privilege human interests over those of animals, as Budolfson says we should, then it’s worth noting that there are huge human costs in animal agriculture too. Workers in slaughterhouses often suffer serious injuries, slaughterhouses too exploit migrant labor, and crime rates increase when slaughterhouses are open (on this last point, see Amy Fitzgerald , Linda Kalof , and Thomas Dietz , “Slaughterhouses and Increased Crime Rates: An Empirical Analysis of the Spillover from ‘the Jungle’ into the Surrounding Community,” Organization & Environment 22 (2009): 158–184 ).

Tom Regan , The Case for Animal Rights (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983), 248 .

Ibid. , 331 . See 351–353 for the application to lifeboat cases specifically.

Hugh Lehman , “On the Moral Acceptability of Killing Animals,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 1 (1988): 161 .

Kathryn Paxton George , “So Animal a Human . . . , or the Moral Relevance of Being an Omnivore,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 3 (1990): 175 . For more, see her Animal, Vegetable, or Woman? A Feminist Critique of Ethical Vegetarianism (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000) .

Terence Cuneo , “Conscientious Omnivorism,” in Philosophy Comes to Dinner: Arguments over the Ethics of Eating , ed. Matthew C. Halteman , Terence Cuneo , and Andrew Chignell (New York: Routledge, 2015), 34 . The sense of “viability” matters here. If it’s economic viability, then some small-scale operations might make the grade, though it’s very difficult to pull off without welfare compromises. For details, see F. Bailey Norwood and Jayson Lusk , Compassion, by the Pound: The Economics of Farm Animal Welfare (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011) and McWilliams, The Modern Savage .

Cuneo, “Conscientious Omnivorism,” 35.

Carl Cohen , “A Critique of the Alleged Moral Basis of Vegetarianism,” in Food for Thought: The Debate over Eating Meat , ed. Steve Sapontzis (Amherst, MA: Prometheus Books, 2004), 152–166 . Peter Alward offers an argument that sounds similar but is much less interesting. He argues that if it’s wrong for us to eat meat, then predation is wrong; predation isn’t wrong, so it’s permissible for us to eat meat. See his “The Naïve Argument against Moral Vegetarianism,” Environmental Values 9 (2000): 81–89 . This argument founders on the distinction between moral agents and moral patients; see David Benatar , “Why the Naïve Argument against Moral Vegetarianism Really Is Naïve,” Environmental Values 10 (2001):103–112 .

Peter Singer , Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals , 3d ed. (New York: HarperCollins, 1975), 226 .

Carruthers, The Animals Issue ; see too his “Animal Mentality: Its Character, Extent, and Moral Significance,” in The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics , ed. Tom Beauchamp and R. G. Frey (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 373–406 .

Not every version of contractualism does this; see, e.g., Mark Rowlands , Animal Rights: Moral Theory and Practice (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009) .

Carruthers, The Animals Issue , 159.

Andrew Linzey , ed., The Link between Animal Abuse and Human Violence (Eastbourne, UK: Sussex Academic Press, 2009) .

Carruthers is also known for denying that animals are phenomenally conscious, which interacts in interesting ways with his contractualism. For an overview, see his Carruthers, “Animal Mentality”; for the details, see his Consciousness: Essays from a Higher-Order Perspective (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005) . For a different form of contractualism that allows for some animal consumption, see John Zeis “A Rawlsian Pro-Life Argument against Vegetarianism,” International Philosophical Quarterly 53 (2013): 63–71 . On his view, contractors produce three sets of moral rules depending on what’s bracketed behind the veil of ignorance: one for rational individuals, one for sentient individuals, and one for living individuals. The rules are binding in that order, so that your obligations to beings qua sentient beings can’t trump your obligations to beings qua rational.

Jennifer Welchman , “Xenografting, Species Loyalty, and Human Solidarity,” Journal of Social Philosophy 34 (2003): 244–255 ; Bernard Williams , “The Human Prejudice,” in Philosophy as a Humanistic Discipline , ed. A. W. Moore (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006), 135–152 ; Logi Gunnarsson , “The Great Apes and the Severely Disabled: Moral Status and Thick Evaluative Concepts,” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 11 (2008): 305–326 ; S. Matthew Liao , “The Basis of Human Moral Status,” Journal of Moral Philosophy 7 (2010): 159–179 ; Douglas MacLean , “Is ‘Being Human’ a Moral Concept?” Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly 30 (2010): 16–20 ; Timothy Chappell , “On the Very Idea of Criteria for Personhood,” Southern Journal of Philosophy 49 (2010): 1–27 ; Hsiao, “In Defense of Eating Meat.”

Williams, “The Human Prejudice” ; MacLean, “Is ‘Being Human’ a Moral Concept?”

Liao, “The Basis of Human Moral Status” ; Hsaio, “In Defense of Eating Meat.”

Hsaio, “In Defense of Eating Meat,” 280.

Ibid ., 286 .

Ned Hettinger , “Bambi Lovers versus Tree Huggers,” in Food for Thought: The Debate over Eating Meat , ed. Steve Sapontzis (Amherst, MA: Prometheus Books, 2004), 294–301 ; Jennifer Everett , “Vegetarianism, Predation, and Respect for Nature,” in Food for Thought: The Debate over Eating Meat , ed. Steve Sapontzis (Amherst, MA: Prometheus Books, 2004), 302–314 .

J. Baird Callicott , “The Environmental Omnivore’s Dilemma,” in The Moral Complexities of Eating Meat , ed. Ben Bramble and Bob Fischer (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 61 .

Julio Rubio develops another version of this view: “The tragedy of human existence does not allow for a clean conscience. Instead, we have to be content with our always partial efforts to do less evil and more good. In the case of meat-eating, though the choice seems simple when considered from an individual perspective, when placed in the context of family and community it is far more complex. . . . While very few people ‘need’ to eat meat, families and community are fundamental human goods. Our realization of basic human goods is always partial because they so often conflict, and inevitably we will have to choose: For whom will we have the most compassion today? Sometimes it will be animals but other times it may the teenager who would enjoy some time with the family if it included chicken pot pie” ( “Animals, Evil, and Family Meals,” Journal of Moral Theology 3 [2014]: 52 ).

Benjamin Lipscomb , “‘Eat Responsibly’: Agrarianism and Meat,” in Philosophy Comes to Dinner: Arguments over the Ethics of Eating , ed. Matthew C. Halteman , Terence Cuneo , and Andrew Chignell (New York: Routledge), 56–72 .

Lipscomb, “Eat Responsibly,” 70.

For similar sorts of views, see Scruton, Animal Rights and Wrongs and Cerulli , The Mindful Carnivore: A Vegetarian’s Hunt for Sustenance (New York: Pegasus Books, 2012) .

Tzachi Zamir , “Veganism,” Journal of Social Philosophy 35 (2004): 367–379 .

Zamir goes a bit farther, arguing that actual circumstances don’t make it impermissible to purchase and consume products from humane farmers. This isn’t because they meet the ideal of non-exploitative animal husbandry, but because they approximate it, and we can encourage even better agricultural practices by supporting “animal-friendly” farms over their industrial competitors.

Christopher Ciocchetti , “Veganism and Living Well,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (2012): 405–417 .

. . which is compatible with there being some loss. Of course, morality asks people to give up various racist traditions, such as flying the Confederate flag and telling black jokes at family gatherings. But surely we have no particular reason to mourn that loss.

Ultimately, it isn’t clear that he succeeds, as he changes the subject from Grandma’s chicken and carrots to the Thanksgiving turkey. Moreover, he never says how, exactly, he navigates his relationships with the people that his abstinence offends.

Loren Lomasky , “Is It Wrong to Eat Animals?” Social Philosophy and Policy 30 (2013): 178 . On the value of gustatory pleasure, see too Jean Kazez , “The Taste Question in Animal Ethics,” Journal of Applied Philosophy , forthcoming .

Ibid ., 185.

Michael B. Gill , “On Eating Animals,” Social Philosophy and Policy 30 (2013): 201–207 .

Not everyone agrees. I once had a conversation with Carol Adams during which she insisted that there are no costs whatever to giving up animal products. I don’t know if that’s her considered view, but she seemed quite adamant about it at the time.

There are, of course, alternatives to conventional plant agriculture. The standard one is veganic agriculture, which attempts not to harm any animals whatever. Unfortunately, it faces significant practical hurdles; see Cerulli, The Mindful Carnivore . Moreover, even if these can be cleared, veganic agriculture is so uncommon that those who want to source their food this way will probably have to become agriculturists themselves, thus dramatically increasing the burden of going vegan.

For more on this, see David Boonin , “Robbing PETA to Spay Paul: Do Animal Rights Include Reproductive Rights?” Between the Species 13 (2003): 1–8 .

Although Meyers questions even this: “Unlike cattle, pigs, or chickens—and unlike even crabs, lobsters, or shrimp—most insects actually prefer to live in crowded, hot, and filthy conditions. The kinds of livestock environments that the profit demand encourages would actually be one that insects would most prefer. As long as they could be slaughtered humanely, we would have an inexpensive and nutritious, karma free source of meat that is good for the environment and could help prevent massive world hunger” (“Why It Is Morally Good to Eat (Certain Kinds of) Meat,” 124).

For a more detailed defense of this line, see my “Bugging the Strict Vegan.”

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Animal Testing: is it Ethical?

This essay will discuss the ethical considerations of animal testing. It will examine arguments for and against the use of animals in research, exploring moral, scientific, and practical perspectives. The piece will discuss alternatives to animal testing, the current regulations and standards in place, and the role of ethics in scientific progress. It will also consider the impact of public opinion and activism on the future of animal testing. PapersOwl offers a variety of free essay examples on the topic of Animal Testing.

How it works

Animals being sacred gifts given to us, they are the best part of our lives and provide us with a special way of love. They do nothing but bring joy and happiness to us. My whole life I’ve grown up with all different kinds of animals. I’ve had a dog named Shelby, two cats Ruby and Smokey, a bird named Cheeks, two hamsters Bernard and Sandy, and I currently have a dog named Rocky and a rabbit named Daisy.

I have always had a heart for animals, and they mean everything to me. It hurts me to see the way others treat animals in a poor way because they don’t deserve that. All they do is try to love, if you’ve ever been to someone’s house who has any type of animal, you can tell that they just try to kiss you by licking or if a cat rubs his/her head up against you. Some people believe that testing products on animals is good idea because, they feel as if using animals is safer than trying it on humans because they don’t have to worry about injuring anyone. Also, they test on animals to get results to see if it would work on humans and can be sold in stores. I believe this is wrong and cruel. Animals have no say, they can’t talk nor, can they express their feelings. It hurts not only me but many others to see these animals being hurt and seeing pictures of this cruel job people are doing. A majority of animals are just being held hostage, waiting for humans to just non-caringly start testing on them. Causing a lot of them get severely sick, or even die.

Several million animals are tested every year for various reasons. The testing had created lifesaving treatments for humans and animals. However, animal testing may be considered cruel and inhumane. Also, animals are very different from humans, some research results may end up being irrelevant. Animal Testing should only be utilized for serious type testing, for instance to save lives and cures for severe illnesses. But animals should not be used to be tested on makeup and other beauty supplies, because that can be tested in various of different ways.

Society has advanced in research by animal testing and many important studies have arisen by animal experimentation. For example, Russian Psychologist Ivan Pavlov studied dog behavior and Conditioning behavior and he came to some interesting findings that could be correlated to human behavior which involves learning to associate a conditioning stimulus that creates a response. Article Simply Psychology written by Saul McLeod, Oct. 08, 2018. However, there is an ongoing debate regarding the ethics of animal experimentation. An Article on The Ethics of Animal Experimentation, written by Stephanie Liou on July 6, 2010, In Huntington’s Outreach Project for Education at Stanford addresses the fact that animal experimentation has been used to gain knowledge about human disorders and diseases that could lead to specific treatment to help humans with diseases such as Parkinson’s and Huntington’s. My grandmother, Marina died from Huntington’s Disease and had research been more advance with studies possibly performed on animals they may have been able to prolong her life of found a way to keep the Huntington Gene dormant. Cures for many diseases may be found by testing medicine on animals. However, are animals less important than humans? Many animals are the same as humans and they can feel pain and happiness. My dog Rocky becomes extremely excited when I come home from college, jumping up and down, wagging his tail, licking me and loving me. When I leave to go back to college he becomes sad and his eyes become watery. We can’t dismiss the fact that animal have feelings and care just like humans. Just like babies, animals can’t speak up for themselves or protect themselves from mistreatment

Thinking about this more I wondered, could there be any other way to find information out about products other than using animals? Benefits of non-animal testing Animals in science/ Alternatives , In this article they talk a lot about what the non-benefits are for animal testing and one that stood out to me that they talked about is the use the humans’ tissue, the toxicity is a more accurate in experiments for testing, instead of animals. In the article it says that it has a rate of 85% accuracy compared to the rate of 61-65% . They always use human tissue that is donated which means it is not injuring anyone.

Following that leads into another benefit where non-animal testing is more cost effective and more time consuming. In the article it states, it takes animal studies months to do, and estimates that it can test five or six products for less than half the cost to study a single product in animals. It is more efficient to use the method of testing on human skin rather than testing on animals because testing on humans you will get more products tested on humans than you would on animals, which would lead to it being more costly to use animals because you have to buy more materials or products since only one single product can be tested on animals rather than multiple. Trying to research more about other ways to test products out other than using animals I came across this article according to Iowa State Daily Angelica states that the FDA believes animal testing is the only way to ensure new drugs will respond well to live organs and organ systems. This could be true in a way and totally understandable to know what the side effects are going to be before giving it to someone and something tragic happening to them like death or getting severely ill. Although that is a something that is important for us, we are also hurting animals and not really caring about it.

I believe animal testing is a very cruel action of people to do. Although there are some different viewpoints that will be discussed for being pro-animal testing. One of the pros I have found from is Animal testing has contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments Animal Testing . Yes, this could be very helpful to us, but these animals have no say into what is happening to them. They just get to be our guinea pigs and for us to experiment on them hurting them and not caring at all about their feelings. Yes, it is good that it helps us humans out for not getting killed and keeps us from getting severely sick, but we do not need to hurt and kill animals for our sake. We could stop animal testing now, but we decide not to. There are alternative testing methods that can be used without having to use animals. Then again that is a choice these cruel humans don’t get. It is like people who experiment on animals purposely want to be inhumane and kill animals.

After reading for a while and finding out that there are different alternatives for testing other than doing it on animals. I still am curious as to why they continue to test on animals? If there are different ways of testing now, which there are, since we are more advanced in our modern technology nowadays it would be more humane to conduct research without animals. Especially when there are alternative ways in testing such as plants and bacteria. Animals should be considered the last resort when it comes to testing. Scientist could even use unborn fetuses over live animals. As I stated above scientist have used human skin, leftover from surgery’s where skin and fat were taken out.

In this article Arguments against animal testing Cruelty free international , it expresses how animals don’t get many human diseases, many types of cancer, HIV, Parkinson’s disease, or schizophrenia In the labs they artificially induce these different types of illnesses in animals. This article argues that a lot of the times treatments that are said to be good because they were tested on animals often tend to be bad and don’t even take effect in humans. They are saying that animals shouldn’t be used for something serious when they know they are different, and it won’t have the chance to take effect. It is a waste of our time, money, and the animal’s lives.

According to the Pat Dutt and Jonathan Laythem, Phd in their article the experiment is on us; science of animal testing thrown into doubt . New scientific research has brought about doubt in the testing of several consumer products and everyday products, such as soft drinks, baby foods, cosmetics, shampoos, etc. contain synthetic chemicals as preservatives and the safety of theses chemical were based on animal experiments that used rabbits, mice, rats, and dogs. The results of these experiments challenged the fact that animal experiments are of direct relevance to humans. In summary repeated experience determined that when it comes to inflammation mice and humans have little in common, just like the previous article I talked about said as well. Basically, mice are a poor model for human disease and for trying to find cures. Unfortunately, several millions of dollars are being contributed towards animal research when instead it can go towards other ways to figure out cures for human illnesses.

As I have mentioned previously some different alternatives for animal testing, I have found this article that elaborates more on the different types and why they could be more efficient. In this article alternatives to animal testing; a review written by Sonali K. Doke and Shashikant C. Dhawale documents a procedure for alternative to animal testing, where they suggest three R’s; Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement. The strategy of the three R’s was put in place to make an animal experience more humanly. This approach motivates the use of minimal number of animals for the experimental purposes, to reduce the pain and distressed caused to the animals during the experiments. More advanced animals should be replaced with alternative methods and lower organisms. The reduction helps with the careful selection of study design. It can produce a more meaningful experimental results, like with vitro cell culture is a good way to screen the compounds. The refinement is specifically to enhance the cage environment by taking better care of the animals and reducing the stress of the animals. Lastly comes the replacement which is different alternatives to the use of animals such as in vitro models, cell cultures, computer models, and new imaging/ analyzing techniques.

Overall, alternatives to animals testing should be utilized first and for most. Due to the fact that they are less harmful and more ethical in keeping animals safe. Testing for animals should only be used when seriously needed. Animal testing is a serious issue where it is half and half mixed feelings people have about. There are some good outcomes that can come out of it, but there also some really bad issues that are associated with it too. Animal testing is very costly and time consuming and a lot of times isn’t always the cure or best way to research products or treatments.

ProCon.org. “”Animal Testing ProCon.org.”” ProCon.org. 2 Nov. 2017, animal-testing.procon.org/

Animals in Science / Alternatives. Harm and Suffering, www.neavs.org/alternatives/in-testing.

http://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/why-we-do-it/arguments-against-animal-testing

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319016413001096

Cite this page

Animal Testing: Is it Ethical?. (2020, Jan 19). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/animal-testing-is-it-ethical/

"Animal Testing: Is it Ethical?." PapersOwl.com , 19 Jan 2020, https://papersowl.com/examples/animal-testing-is-it-ethical/

PapersOwl.com. (2020). Animal Testing: Is it Ethical? . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/animal-testing-is-it-ethical/ [Accessed: 28 Apr. 2024]

"Animal Testing: Is it Ethical?." PapersOwl.com, Jan 19, 2020. Accessed April 28, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/animal-testing-is-it-ethical/

"Animal Testing: Is it Ethical?," PapersOwl.com , 19-Jan-2020. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/animal-testing-is-it-ethical/. [Accessed: 28-Apr-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2020). Animal Testing: Is it Ethical? . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/animal-testing-is-it-ethical/ [Accessed: 28-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

• IELTS Scores
• Life Skills Test
• Find a Test Centre
• Alternatives to IELTS
• General Training
• Academic Word List
• Topic Vocabulary
• Collocation
• Phrasal Verbs
• Writing eBooks
• Reading eBook
• All eBooks & Courses
• Sample Essays

Animal Testing Essay

Ielts animal testing essay.

Here you will find an example of an IELTS  animal testing essay .

In this essay, you are asked to discuss the arguments  for  and  against  animal testing, and then give  your own conclusions  on the issue.

This means you must look at both sides of the issue and you must also be sure you give your opinion too.

The essay is similar to an essay that says " Discuss both opinions and then give your opinion " but it is worded differently.

Take a look at the question and model answer below, and think about how the essay has been organised and how it achieves coherence and cohesion.

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

Examine the arguments in favour of and against animal experiments, and come to a conclusion on this issue.

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.

Write at least 250 words.

Animals Testing Essay - Model Answer

Issues related to animal experimentation are frequently discussed these days, particularly in the media. It is often said that animals should not be used in testing because it is cruel and unnecessary. This essay will examine the arguments for and against animal testing. 

On the one hand, the people who support these experiments say that we must do tests on animals. For instance, many famous lifesaving drugs were invented in this way, and animal experiments may help us to find more cures in the future. Indeed, possibly even a cure for cancer and AIDS. Furthermore, the animals which are used are not usually wild but are bred especially for experiments. Therefore, they believe it is not true that animal experiments are responsible for reducing the number of wild animals on the planet. 

On the other hand, others feel that there are good arguments against this. First and foremost, animal experiments are unkind and cause animals a lot of pain. In addition, they feel that many tests are not really important, and in fact animals are not only used to test new medicines but also new cosmetics, which could be tested on humans instead. Another issue is that sometimes an experiment on animals gives us the wrong result because animals’ bodies are not exactly the same as our own. As a consequence, this testing may not be providing the safety that its proponents claim.

In conclusion, I am of the opinion, on balance, that the benefits do not outweigh the disadvantages, and testing on animals should not continue. Although it may improve the lives of humans, it is not fair that animals should suffer in order to achieve this.

(Words 278)

This animal testing essay would achieve a high score.

It fully answers all parts of the task - explaining the arguments ' for ' in the first paragraph and the arguments ' against ' in the next. Conclusions are then drawn with the writer giving their opinion in the conclusion.

It is thus very clearly organised, with each body paragraph having a central idea .

Ideas are also extended and supported by the use of reasons and some examples or further clarification. No ideas are left unclear or unexplained.

There is also some good topic related vocabulary in the animal testing essay such as 'life saving drugs ' and 'bred ' and a mix of complex sentences , such as adverbial clauses :

'Although it may improve the lives of humans, it is not fair that animals should suffer in order to achieve this'.

Noun clauses :

'...they feel that many tests are not really important'.

And relative clauses :

'...the animals which are used are not usually wild... '

Transitions are also used effectively to ensure there is good coherence and cohesion . For example, ' On the other hand.. ' indicates a change to discuss the contrasting ideas, and ' Therefore... " and ' As a consequence..' are used to give results.

<<< Back

Next >>>

More 'Hybrid' Type IELTS Essays:

IELTS Essay: What influence do children’s friends have on them?

In this influence of children's friends essay for IELTS you have to discuss the way children's friends may affect their behaviour and what parents can do to control this.

Old Buildings Essay: How important is it to maintain & protect them?

This essay is about old buildings and whether they should be protected. It's an opinion essay, as you have to give your opinion on protecting old buildings.

Fear of Crime Essay: Can more be done to prevent crime?

In this fear of crime essay question for IELTS you have to discuss whether more can be down to prevent crime. It's an opinion type essay.

Communication Technology Essay: How have relationships changed?

Communication Technology Essay for IELTS: This essay is about how relationships have been impacted. View a model answer with tips on how to answer the Task 2 Question.

Any comments or questions about this page or about IELTS? Post them here. Your email will not be published or shared.

Before you go...

Check out the ielts buddy band 7+ ebooks & courses.

Would you prefer to share this page with others by linking to it?

• Click on the HTML link code below.
• Copy and paste it, adding a note of your own, into your blog, a Web page, forums, a blog comment, your Facebook account, or anywhere that someone would find this page valuable.

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

• All Lessons
• Band Score Calculator
• Writing Feedback
• Speaking Feedback
• Teacher Resources
• Free Downloads
• Recent Essay Exam Questions
• Books for IELTS Prep
• Useful Links

Recent Articles

Fillers for IELTS Speaking: Avoid 'Eh', Uhm', 'You know'.

Apr 27, 24 05:48 AM

Decreasing House Sizes Essay

Apr 06, 24 10:22 AM

Latest IELTS Writing Topics - Recent Exam Questions

Apr 04, 24 02:36 AM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening   IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Connect with us

Copyright © 2022- IELTSbuddy All Rights Reserved

IELTS is a registered trademark of University of Cambridge, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia.

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Animal Rights — Persuasive Essay Against Animal Testing

Persuasive Essay Against Animal Testing

• Categories: Animal Rights Animal Testing Ethics

About this sample

Words: 572 |

Published: Mar 5, 2024

Words: 572 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues Philosophy

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 531 words

2 pages / 878 words

2 pages / 847 words

2 pages / 1134 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Animal Rights

Animals have been a part of human society for centuries, serving various purposes such as companionship, food, and entertainment. However, the treatment of animals has been a topic of debate for years, with some arguing that [...]

Animal research has long been a contentious issue, with proponents touting its benefits to scientific progress and detractors decrying its ethical implications. This essay explores both sides of the debate and offers a [...]

Animal testing has been a common practice in scientific research and testing for decades. The use of animals, however, remains a highly controversial issue. Animal Research: The Ethics of Animal Experimentation. [...]

The question of whether zoos help or harm animals is a contentious and complex issue that has sparked widespread debate among animal rights advocates, conservationists, and the general public. On one hand, zoos are touted as [...]

“Elephants in the wild travel up to 50 miles every day” and hundreds of those elephants are captured and bred into captivity (Dahl 1). Keeping them would be inherently cruel, for they would have to live the rest of their lives [...]

Zoos have been a topic of debate for many years, with some arguing that they play a crucial role in conservation efforts, while others believe that they are unethical and should be banned. This essay will explore the history of [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• CBSE Class 10th
• CBSE Class 12th
• UP Board 10th
• UP Board 12th
• Bihar Board 10th
• Bihar Board 12th
• Top Schools in India
• Top Schools in Delhi
• Top Schools in Mumbai
• Top Schools in Chennai
• Top Schools in Hyderabad
• Top Schools in Kolkata
• Top Schools in Pune
• Top Schools in Bangalore

Products & Resources

• JEE Main Knockout April
• Free Sample Papers
• Free Ebooks
• NCERT Notes
• NCERT Syllabus
• NCERT Books
• RD Sharma Solutions
• Navodaya Vidyalaya Admission 2024-25
• NCERT Solutions
• NCERT Solutions for Class 12
• NCERT Solutions for Class 11
• NCERT solutions for Class 10
• NCERT solutions for Class 9
• NCERT solutions for Class 8
• NCERT Solutions for Class 7
• JEE Main 2024
• MHT CET 2024
• JEE Advanced 2024
• BITSAT 2024
• View All Engineering Exams
• Colleges Accepting B.Tech Applications
• Top Engineering Colleges in India
• Engineering Colleges in India
• Engineering Colleges in Tamil Nadu
• Engineering Colleges Accepting JEE Main
• Top IITs in India
• Top NITs in India
• Top IIITs in India
• JEE Main College Predictor
• JEE Main Rank Predictor
• MHT CET College Predictor
• AP EAMCET College Predictor
• GATE College Predictor
• KCET College Predictor
• JEE Advanced College Predictor
• View All College Predictors
• JEE Main Question Paper
• JEE Main Cutoff
• JEE Main Answer Key
• JEE Main Result
• Download E-Books and Sample Papers
• Compare Colleges
• B.Tech College Applications
• JEE Advanced Registration
• MAH MBA CET Exam
• View All Management Exams

Colleges & Courses

• MBA College Admissions
• MBA Colleges in India
• Top IIMs Colleges in India
• Top Online MBA Colleges in India
• MBA Colleges Accepting XAT Score
• BBA Colleges in India
• XAT College Predictor 2024
• SNAP College Predictor
• NMAT College Predictor
• MAT College Predictor 2024
• CMAT College Predictor 2024
• CAT Percentile Predictor 2023
• CAT 2023 College Predictor
• CMAT 2024 Registration
• TS ICET 2024 Registration
• CMAT Exam Date 2024
• MAH MBA CET Cutoff 2024
• Download Helpful Ebooks
• List of Popular Branches
• QnA - Get answers to your doubts
• IIM Fees Structure
• AIIMS Nursing
• Top Medical Colleges in India
• Top Medical Colleges in India accepting NEET Score
• Medical Colleges accepting NEET
• List of Medical Colleges in India
• List of AIIMS Colleges In India
• Medical Colleges in Maharashtra
• Medical Colleges in India Accepting NEET PG
• NEET College Predictor
• NEET PG College Predictor
• NEET MDS College Predictor
• DNB CET College Predictor
• DNB PDCET College Predictor
• NEET Application Form 2024
• NEET PG Application Form 2024
• NEET Cut off
• NEET Online Preparation
• Download Helpful E-books
• LSAT India 2024
• Colleges Accepting Admissions
• Top Law Colleges in India
• Law College Accepting CLAT Score
• List of Law Colleges in India
• Top Law Colleges in Delhi
• Top Law Collages in Indore
• Top Law Colleges in Chandigarh
• Top Law Collages in Lucknow

Predictors & E-Books

• CLAT College Predictor
• MHCET Law ( 5 Year L.L.B) College Predictor
• AILET College Predictor
• Sample Papers
• Compare Law Collages
• Careers360 Youtube Channel
• CLAT Syllabus 2025
• CLAT Previous Year Question Paper
• AIBE 18 Result 2023
• NID DAT Exam
• Pearl Academy Exam

Animation Courses

• Animation Courses in India
• Animation Courses in Bangalore
• Animation Courses in Mumbai
• Animation Courses in Pune
• Animation Courses in Chennai
• Animation Courses in Hyderabad
• Design Colleges in India
• Fashion Design Colleges in Bangalore
• Fashion Design Colleges in Mumbai
• Fashion Design Colleges in Pune
• Fashion Design Colleges in Delhi
• Fashion Design Colleges in Hyderabad
• Fashion Design Colleges in India
• Top Design Colleges in India
• Free Design E-books
• List of Branches
• Careers360 Youtube channel
• NIFT College Predictor
• UCEED College Predictor
• NID DAT College Predictor
• IPU CET BJMC
• JMI Mass Communication Entrance Exam
• IIMC Entrance Exam
• Media & Journalism colleges in Delhi
• Media & Journalism colleges in Bangalore
• Media & Journalism colleges in Mumbai
• List of Media & Journalism Colleges in India
• CA Intermediate
• CA Foundation
• CS Executive
• CS Professional
• Difference between CA and CS
• Difference between CA and CMA
• CA Full form
• CMA Full form
• CS Full form
• CA Salary In India

Top Courses & Careers

• Bachelor of Commerce (B.Com)
• Master of Commerce (M.Com)
• Company Secretary
• Cost Accountant
• Charted Accountant
• Credit Manager
• Financial Advisor
• Top Commerce Colleges in India
• Top Government Commerce Colleges in India
• Top Private Commerce Colleges in India
• Top M.Com Colleges in Mumbai
• Top B.Com Colleges in India
• IT Colleges in Tamil Nadu
• IT Colleges in Uttar Pradesh
• MCA Colleges in India
• BCA Colleges in India

Quick Links

• Information Technology Courses
• Programming Courses
• Web Development Courses
• Data Analytics Courses
• Big Data Analytics Courses
• RUHS Pharmacy Admission Test
• Top Pharmacy Colleges in India
• Pharmacy Colleges in Pune
• Pharmacy Colleges in Mumbai
• Colleges Accepting GPAT Score
• Pharmacy Colleges in Lucknow
• List of Pharmacy Colleges in Nagpur
• GPAT Result
• GPAT 2024 Admit Card
• GPAT Question Papers
• NCHMCT JEE 2024
• Mah BHMCT CET
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Delhi
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Hyderabad
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Mumbai
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Tamil Nadu
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Maharashtra
• B.Sc Hotel Management
• Hotel Management
• Diploma in Hotel Management and Catering Technology

Diploma Colleges

• Top Diploma Colleges in Maharashtra
• UPSC IAS 2024
• SSC CGL 2024
• IBPS RRB 2024
• Previous Year Sample Papers
• Free Competition E-books
• Sarkari Result
• QnA- Get your doubts answered
• UPSC Previous Year Sample Papers
• CTET Previous Year Sample Papers
• SBI Clerk Previous Year Sample Papers
• NDA Previous Year Sample Papers

Upcoming Events

• NDA Application Form 2024
• UPSC IAS Application Form 2024
• CDS Application Form 2024
• CTET Admit card 2024
• HP TET Result 2023
• SSC GD Constable Admit Card 2024
• UPTET Notification 2024
• SBI Clerk Result 2024

Other Exams

• SSC CHSL 2024
• UP PCS 2024
• UGC NET 2024
• RRB NTPC 2024
• IBPS PO 2024
• IBPS Clerk 2024
• IBPS SO 2024
• Top University in USA
• Top University in Canada
• Top University in Ireland
• Top Universities in UK
• Top Universities in Australia
• Best MBA Colleges in Abroad
• Business Management Studies Colleges

Top Countries

• Study in USA
• Study in UK
• Study in Canada
• Study in Australia
• Study in Ireland
• Study in Germany
• Study in China
• Study in Europe

Student Visas

• Student Visa Canada
• Student Visa UK
• Student Visa USA
• Student Visa Australia
• Student Visa Germany
• Student Visa New Zealand
• Student Visa Ireland
• CUET PG 2024
• IGNOU B.Ed Admission 2024
• DU Admission 2024
• UP B.Ed JEE 2024
• LPU NEST 2024
• IIT JAM 2024
• IGNOU Online Admission 2024
• Universities in India
• Top Universities in India 2024
• Top Colleges in India
• Top Universities in Uttar Pradesh 2024
• Top Universities in Bihar
• Top Universities in Madhya Pradesh 2024
• Top Universities in Tamil Nadu 2024
• Central Universities in India
• CUET Exam City Intimation Slip 2024
• IGNOU Date Sheet
• CUET Mock Test 2024
• CUET Admit card 2024
• CUET PG Syllabus 2024
• CUET Participating Universities 2024
• CUET Previous Year Question Paper
• CUET Syllabus 2024 for Science Students
• E-Books and Sample Papers
• CUET Exam Pattern 2024
• CUET Exam Date 2024
• CUET Syllabus 2024
• IGNOU Exam Form 2024
• IGNOU Result
• CUET Courses List 2024

Engineering Preparation

• Knockout JEE Main 2024
• Test Series JEE Main 2024
• JEE Main 2024 Rank Booster

Medical Preparation

• Knockout NEET 2024
• Test Series NEET 2024
• Rank Booster NEET 2024

Online Courses

• JEE Main One Month Course
• NEET One Month Course
• IBSAT Free Mock Tests
• IIT JEE Foundation Course
• Knockout BITSAT 2024
• Career Guidance Tool

Top Streams

• IT & Software Certification Courses
• Engineering and Architecture Certification Courses
• Programming And Development Certification Courses
• Business and Management Certification Courses
• Marketing Certification Courses
• Health and Fitness Certification Courses
• Design Certification Courses

Specializations

• Digital Marketing Certification Courses
• Cyber Security Certification Courses
• Artificial Intelligence Certification Courses
• Business Analytics Certification Courses
• Data Science Certification Courses
• Cloud Computing Certification Courses
• Machine Learning Certification Courses
• View All Certification Courses
• UG Degree Courses
• PG Degree Courses
• Short Term Courses
• Free Courses
• Online Degrees and Diplomas
• Compare Courses

Top Providers

• Coursera Courses
• Udemy Courses
• Edx Courses
• Swayam Courses
• upGrad Courses
• Simplilearn Courses
• Great Learning Courses

Access premium articles, webinars, resources to make the best decisions for career, course, exams, scholarships, study abroad and much more with

Plan, Prepare & Make the Best Career Choices

Essay On Animals

The quote by Anatole France, “Until one has loved an animal, a part of one’s soul remains unawakened”, sums it all about animals. Planet Earth is home to humans as well as animals. According to the survey, it is estimated that over 8 million species of animals exist on Earth, living on land and water. Each species has a unique place in the environment and balances the ecosystem. These species play a significant role in the stability of the ecosystem, environment, and our lives.

100 Words Essay On Animals

200 words essay on animals, 500 words essay on animals.

Since the beginning of human civilisation, humans have interacted with wildlife. Before the era of industrialisation and urbanisation, human life was dependent on animals. The big animals were a threat to our ancestors who once lived in caves and were nomads. Eventually, they learned to survive, fight and use the animal's skin for clothing, the meat for food or bait, and ivory elements as utensils or ornaments. Even as humans evolved, animals have contributed to various aspects like transportation, the economy, social life etc. The increased dependence of humans on animals has caused threats to their existence. Hence, their preservation and protection against any abuse is our responsibility.

Animals are the most adorable and loving creatures existing on Earth. They might not be able to speak, but they can understand. They have a unique mode of interaction which is beyond human understanding. There are two types of animals: domestic and wild animals.

Domestic Animals | Domestic animals such as dogs, cows, cats, donkeys, mules and elephants are the ones which are used for the purpose of domestication. Wild animals refer to animals that are not normally domesticated and generally live in forests. They are important for their economic, survival, beauty, and scientific value.

Wild Animals | Wild animals provide various useful substances and animal products such as honey, leather, ivory, tusk, etc. They are of cultural asset and aesthetic value to humankind. Human life largely depends on wild animals for elementary requirements like the medicines we consume and the clothes we wear daily.

Nature and wildlife are largely associated with humans for several reasons, such as emotional and social issues. The balanced functioning of the biosphere depends on endless interactions among microorganisms, plants and animals. This has led to countless efforts by humans for the conservation of animals and to protect them from extinction. Animals have occupied a special place of preservation and veneration in various cultures worldwide.

Animals are made up of numerous cells that can move, sense and reproduce. They play a vital role in maintaining nature’s balance. Numerous animal species exist in the land as well as water, and each has a purpose for their existence.

Different Types Of Animals

Biologists have divided into particular groups for better understanding at the species level, for instance – amphibians - animals which live on land as well as water, reptiles – which are scaled bodies and cold-blooded animals, mammals – animals which give birth to the offspring in the womb and have mammary glands, birds – animals with forelimbs evolved to wings and feather-covered body, and also lays eggs for giving birth, fishes – aquatic animals having fins in place of limbs, and gills for the respiration, insects – they are mostly six-legged or more, and mostly having a head, abdomen, and thorax.

How Animals Help Humans

Since the time of existence and evolution of human beings, we have established ourselves as the greater and more superior species because of sophisticated and advanced ways of thinking and applying. With time, humans have learned to use animals to their benefit and have also realised how to incorporate animals into our social lives:-

Animal husbandry has been in existence for a very long period of time.

Animals have been used for numerous purposes like clothing, food, entertainment, and transportation.

Animals have also been used to discover new things from tests and research. Several vaccines and medicines obtained from animals have turned out to be benison.

Animals have also been used for outer-space explorations, leading to milestone achievements in scientific discoveries.

Humans have used animals for good (sustain livelihood) and evil purposes (acts of torture to poor animals). Even as the world modernised, people have started thinking about animals and working for their rights, creating awareness among humans.

The bond between humans and animals has evolved as a strong bond, and now both coexist with a mutual understanding of nature. Humans have strived to preserve those endangered and rare species via modern conservation modes, including national parks, sanctuaries, etc.

My Experience With Animals

As a child raised in a city, I never had first-hand experience with animals. Though people domesticate animals, I was always afraid of them. Due to the fear of getting infected and being bitten, I never went near them. One fine day, I saw finches in the pet shop near my house. At first glance, I loved them for a long time, but then one of my friends asked me to reach out to them and observe them. To my astonishment, the finches drew near me and were looking at me. I thought to take them with me, and when I took them – I was amazed by their understanding, love and interactions. This led me to love the animals and look at them from a different perspective, not with a fearful heart. They are the most loving creatures existing on Earth.

Explore Career Options (By Industry)

• Construction
• Entertainment
• Manufacturing
• Information Technology

Data Administrator

Database professionals use software to store and organise data such as financial information, and customer shipping records. Individuals who opt for a career as data administrators ensure that data is available for users and secured from unauthorised sales. DB administrators may work in various types of industries. It may involve computer systems design, service firms, insurance companies, banks and hospitals.

Bio Medical Engineer

The field of biomedical engineering opens up a universe of expert chances. An Individual in the biomedical engineering career path work in the field of engineering as well as medicine, in order to find out solutions to common problems of the two fields. The biomedical engineering job opportunities are to collaborate with doctors and researchers to develop medical systems, equipment, or devices that can solve clinical problems. Here we will be discussing jobs after biomedical engineering, how to get a job in biomedical engineering, biomedical engineering scope, and salary. 

Ethical Hacker

A career as ethical hacker involves various challenges and provides lucrative opportunities in the digital era where every giant business and startup owns its cyberspace on the world wide web. Individuals in the ethical hacker career path try to find the vulnerabilities in the cyber system to get its authority. If he or she succeeds in it then he or she gets its illegal authority. Individuals in the ethical hacker career path then steal information or delete the file that could affect the business, functioning, or services of the organization.

GIS officer work on various GIS software to conduct a study and gather spatial and non-spatial information. GIS experts update the GIS data and maintain it. The databases include aerial or satellite imagery, latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates, and manually digitized images of maps. In a career as GIS expert, one is responsible for creating online and mobile maps.

Data Analyst

The invention of the database has given fresh breath to the people involved in the data analytics career path. Analysis refers to splitting up a whole into its individual components for individual analysis. Data analysis is a method through which raw data are processed and transformed into information that would be beneficial for user strategic thinking.

Data are collected and examined to respond to questions, evaluate hypotheses or contradict theories. It is a tool for analyzing, transforming, modeling, and arranging data with useful knowledge, to assist in decision-making and methods, encompassing various strategies, and is used in different fields of business, research, and social science.

Geothermal Engineer

Individuals who opt for a career as geothermal engineers are the professionals involved in the processing of geothermal energy. The responsibilities of geothermal engineers may vary depending on the workplace location. Those who work in fields design facilities to process and distribute geothermal energy. They oversee the functioning of machinery used in the field.

Database Architect

If you are intrigued by the programming world and are interested in developing communications networks then a career as database architect may be a good option for you. Data architect roles and responsibilities include building design models for data communication networks. Wide Area Networks (WANs), local area networks (LANs), and intranets are included in the database networks. It is expected that database architects will have in-depth knowledge of a company's business to develop a network to fulfil the requirements of the organisation. Stay tuned as we look at the larger picture and give you more information on what is db architecture, why you should pursue database architecture, what to expect from such a degree and what your job opportunities will be after graduation. Here, we will be discussing how to become a data architect. Students can visit NIT Trichy , IIT Kharagpur , JMI New Delhi . 

Remote Sensing Technician

Individuals who opt for a career as a remote sensing technician possess unique personalities. Remote sensing analysts seem to be rational human beings, they are strong, independent, persistent, sincere, realistic and resourceful. Some of them are analytical as well, which means they are intelligent, introspective and inquisitive. 

Remote sensing scientists use remote sensing technology to support scientists in fields such as community planning, flight planning or the management of natural resources. Analysing data collected from aircraft, satellites or ground-based platforms using statistical analysis software, image analysis software or Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is a significant part of their work. Do you want to learn how to become remote sensing technician? There's no need to be concerned; we've devised a simple remote sensing technician career path for you. Scroll through the pages and read.

Budget Analyst

Budget analysis, in a nutshell, entails thoroughly analyzing the details of a financial budget. The budget analysis aims to better understand and manage revenue. Budget analysts assist in the achievement of financial targets, the preservation of profitability, and the pursuit of long-term growth for a business. Budget analysts generally have a bachelor's degree in accounting, finance, economics, or a closely related field. Knowledge of Financial Management is of prime importance in this career.

Underwriter

An underwriter is a person who assesses and evaluates the risk of insurance in his or her field like mortgage, loan, health policy, investment, and so on and so forth. The underwriter career path does involve risks as analysing the risks means finding out if there is a way for the insurance underwriter jobs to recover the money from its clients. If the risk turns out to be too much for the company then in the future it is an underwriter who will be held accountable for it. Therefore, one must carry out his or her job with a lot of attention and diligence.

Finance Executive

Product manager.

A Product Manager is a professional responsible for product planning and marketing. He or she manages the product throughout the Product Life Cycle, gathering and prioritising the product. A product manager job description includes defining the product vision and working closely with team members of other departments to deliver winning products.  

Operations Manager

Individuals in the operations manager jobs are responsible for ensuring the efficiency of each department to acquire its optimal goal. They plan the use of resources and distribution of materials. The operations manager's job description includes managing budgets, negotiating contracts, and performing administrative tasks.

Stock Analyst

Individuals who opt for a career as a stock analyst examine the company's investments makes decisions and keep track of financial securities. The nature of such investments will differ from one business to the next. Individuals in the stock analyst career use data mining to forecast a company's profits and revenues, advise clients on whether to buy or sell, participate in seminars, and discussing financial matters with executives and evaluate annual reports.

A Researcher is a professional who is responsible for collecting data and information by reviewing the literature and conducting experiments and surveys. He or she uses various methodological processes to provide accurate data and information that is utilised by academicians and other industry professionals. Here, we will discuss what is a researcher, the researcher's salary, types of researchers.

Welding Engineer

Welding Engineer Job Description: A Welding Engineer work involves managing welding projects and supervising welding teams. He or she is responsible for reviewing welding procedures, processes and documentation. A career as Welding Engineer involves conducting failure analyses and causes on welding issues. 

Transportation Planner

A career as Transportation Planner requires technical application of science and technology in engineering, particularly the concepts, equipment and technologies involved in the production of products and services. In fields like land use, infrastructure review, ecological standards and street design, he or she considers issues of health, environment and performance. A Transportation Planner assigns resources for implementing and designing programmes. He or she is responsible for assessing needs, preparing plans and forecasts and compliance with regulations.

Environmental Engineer

Individuals who opt for a career as an environmental engineer are construction professionals who utilise the skills and knowledge of biology, soil science, chemistry and the concept of engineering to design and develop projects that serve as solutions to various environmental problems. 

Safety Manager

A Safety Manager is a professional responsible for employee’s safety at work. He or she plans, implements and oversees the company’s employee safety. A Safety Manager ensures compliance and adherence to Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) guidelines.

Conservation Architect

A Conservation Architect is a professional responsible for conserving and restoring buildings or monuments having a historic value. He or she applies techniques to document and stabilise the object’s state without any further damage. A Conservation Architect restores the monuments and heritage buildings to bring them back to their original state.

Structural Engineer

A Structural Engineer designs buildings, bridges, and other related structures. He or she analyzes the structures and makes sure the structures are strong enough to be used by the people. A career as a Structural Engineer requires working in the construction process. It comes under the civil engineering discipline. A Structure Engineer creates structural models with the help of computer-aided design software. 

Highway Engineer

Highway Engineer Job Description:  A Highway Engineer is a civil engineer who specialises in planning and building thousands of miles of roads that support connectivity and allow transportation across the country. He or she ensures that traffic management schemes are effectively planned concerning economic sustainability and successful implementation.

Field Surveyor

Are you searching for a Field Surveyor Job Description? A Field Surveyor is a professional responsible for conducting field surveys for various places or geographical conditions. He or she collects the required data and information as per the instructions given by senior officials. 

Orthotist and Prosthetist

Orthotists and Prosthetists are professionals who provide aid to patients with disabilities. They fix them to artificial limbs (prosthetics) and help them to regain stability. There are times when people lose their limbs in an accident. In some other occasions, they are born without a limb or orthopaedic impairment. Orthotists and prosthetists play a crucial role in their lives with fixing them to assistive devices and provide mobility.

Pathologist

A career in pathology in India is filled with several responsibilities as it is a medical branch and affects human lives. The demand for pathologists has been increasing over the past few years as people are getting more aware of different diseases. Not only that, but an increase in population and lifestyle changes have also contributed to the increase in a pathologist’s demand. The pathology careers provide an extremely huge number of opportunities and if you want to be a part of the medical field you can consider being a pathologist. If you want to know more about a career in pathology in India then continue reading this article.

Veterinary Doctor

Speech therapist, gynaecologist.

Gynaecology can be defined as the study of the female body. The job outlook for gynaecology is excellent since there is evergreen demand for one because of their responsibility of dealing with not only women’s health but also fertility and pregnancy issues. Although most women prefer to have a women obstetrician gynaecologist as their doctor, men also explore a career as a gynaecologist and there are ample amounts of male doctors in the field who are gynaecologists and aid women during delivery and childbirth. 

Audiologist

The audiologist career involves audiology professionals who are responsible to treat hearing loss and proactively preventing the relevant damage. Individuals who opt for a career as an audiologist use various testing strategies with the aim to determine if someone has a normal sensitivity to sounds or not. After the identification of hearing loss, a hearing doctor is required to determine which sections of the hearing are affected, to what extent they are affected, and where the wound causing the hearing loss is found. As soon as the hearing loss is identified, the patients are provided with recommendations for interventions and rehabilitation such as hearing aids, cochlear implants, and appropriate medical referrals. While audiology is a branch of science that studies and researches hearing, balance, and related disorders.

An oncologist is a specialised doctor responsible for providing medical care to patients diagnosed with cancer. He or she uses several therapies to control the cancer and its effect on the human body such as chemotherapy, immunotherapy, radiation therapy and biopsy. An oncologist designs a treatment plan based on a pathology report after diagnosing the type of cancer and where it is spreading inside the body.

Are you searching for an ‘Anatomist job description’? An Anatomist is a research professional who applies the laws of biological science to determine the ability of bodies of various living organisms including animals and humans to regenerate the damaged or destroyed organs. If you want to know what does an anatomist do, then read the entire article, where we will answer all your questions.

For an individual who opts for a career as an actor, the primary responsibility is to completely speak to the character he or she is playing and to persuade the crowd that the character is genuine by connecting with them and bringing them into the story. This applies to significant roles and littler parts, as all roles join to make an effective creation. Here in this article, we will discuss how to become an actor in India, actor exams, actor salary in India, and actor jobs. 

Individuals who opt for a career as acrobats create and direct original routines for themselves, in addition to developing interpretations of existing routines. The work of circus acrobats can be seen in a variety of performance settings, including circus, reality shows, sports events like the Olympics, movies and commercials. Individuals who opt for a career as acrobats must be prepared to face rejections and intermittent periods of work. The creativity of acrobats may extend to other aspects of the performance. For example, acrobats in the circus may work with gym trainers, celebrities or collaborate with other professionals to enhance such performance elements as costume and or maybe at the teaching end of the career.

Video Game Designer

Career as a video game designer is filled with excitement as well as responsibilities. A video game designer is someone who is involved in the process of creating a game from day one. He or she is responsible for fulfilling duties like designing the character of the game, the several levels involved, plot, art and similar other elements. Individuals who opt for a career as a video game designer may also write the codes for the game using different programming languages.

Depending on the video game designer job description and experience they may also have to lead a team and do the early testing of the game in order to suggest changes and find loopholes.

Radio Jockey

Radio Jockey is an exciting, promising career and a great challenge for music lovers. If you are really interested in a career as radio jockey, then it is very important for an RJ to have an automatic, fun, and friendly personality. If you want to get a job done in this field, a strong command of the language and a good voice are always good things. Apart from this, in order to be a good radio jockey, you will also listen to good radio jockeys so that you can understand their style and later make your own by practicing.

A career as radio jockey has a lot to offer to deserving candidates. If you want to know more about a career as radio jockey, and how to become a radio jockey then continue reading the article.

Choreographer

The word “choreography" actually comes from Greek words that mean “dance writing." Individuals who opt for a career as a choreographer create and direct original dances, in addition to developing interpretations of existing dances. A Choreographer dances and utilises his or her creativity in other aspects of dance performance. For example, he or she may work with the music director to select music or collaborate with other famous choreographers to enhance such performance elements as lighting, costume and set design.

Social Media Manager

A career as social media manager involves implementing the company’s or brand’s marketing plan across all social media channels. Social media managers help in building or improving a brand’s or a company’s website traffic, build brand awareness, create and implement marketing and brand strategy. Social media managers are key to important social communication as well.

Photographer

Photography is considered both a science and an art, an artistic means of expression in which the camera replaces the pen. In a career as a photographer, an individual is hired to capture the moments of public and private events, such as press conferences or weddings, or may also work inside a studio, where people go to get their picture clicked. Photography is divided into many streams each generating numerous career opportunities in photography. With the boom in advertising, media, and the fashion industry, photography has emerged as a lucrative and thrilling career option for many Indian youths.

An individual who is pursuing a career as a producer is responsible for managing the business aspects of production. They are involved in each aspect of production from its inception to deception. Famous movie producers review the script, recommend changes and visualise the story. 

They are responsible for overseeing the finance involved in the project and distributing the film for broadcasting on various platforms. A career as a producer is quite fulfilling as well as exhaustive in terms of playing different roles in order for a production to be successful. Famous movie producers are responsible for hiring creative and technical personnel on contract basis.

Copy Writer

In a career as a copywriter, one has to consult with the client and understand the brief well. A career as a copywriter has a lot to offer to deserving candidates. Several new mediums of advertising are opening therefore making it a lucrative career choice. Students can pursue various copywriter courses such as Journalism , Advertising , Marketing Management . Here, we have discussed how to become a freelance copywriter, copywriter career path, how to become a copywriter in India, and copywriting career outlook. 

In a career as a vlogger, one generally works for himself or herself. However, once an individual has gained viewership there are several brands and companies that approach them for paid collaboration. It is one of those fields where an individual can earn well while following his or her passion. 

Ever since internet costs got reduced the viewership for these types of content has increased on a large scale. Therefore, a career as a vlogger has a lot to offer. If you want to know more about the Vlogger eligibility, roles and responsibilities then continue reading the article. 

For publishing books, newspapers, magazines and digital material, editorial and commercial strategies are set by publishers. Individuals in publishing career paths make choices about the markets their businesses will reach and the type of content that their audience will be served. Individuals in book publisher careers collaborate with editorial staff, designers, authors, and freelance contributors who develop and manage the creation of content.

Careers in journalism are filled with excitement as well as responsibilities. One cannot afford to miss out on the details. As it is the small details that provide insights into a story. Depending on those insights a journalist goes about writing a news article. A journalism career can be stressful at times but if you are someone who is passionate about it then it is the right choice for you. If you want to know more about the media field and journalist career then continue reading this article.

Individuals in the editor career path is an unsung hero of the news industry who polishes the language of the news stories provided by stringers, reporters, copywriters and content writers and also news agencies. Individuals who opt for a career as an editor make it more persuasive, concise and clear for readers. In this article, we will discuss the details of the editor's career path such as how to become an editor in India, editor salary in India and editor skills and qualities.

Individuals who opt for a career as a reporter may often be at work on national holidays and festivities. He or she pitches various story ideas and covers news stories in risky situations. Students can pursue a BMC (Bachelor of Mass Communication) , B.M.M. (Bachelor of Mass Media) , or  MAJMC (MA in Journalism and Mass Communication) to become a reporter. While we sit at home reporters travel to locations to collect information that carries a news value.  

Corporate Executive

Are you searching for a Corporate Executive job description? A Corporate Executive role comes with administrative duties. He or she provides support to the leadership of the organisation. A Corporate Executive fulfils the business purpose and ensures its financial stability. In this article, we are going to discuss how to become corporate executive.

Multimedia Specialist

A multimedia specialist is a media professional who creates, audio, videos, graphic image files, computer animations for multimedia applications. He or she is responsible for planning, producing, and maintaining websites and applications. 

Quality Controller

A quality controller plays a crucial role in an organisation. He or she is responsible for performing quality checks on manufactured products. He or she identifies the defects in a product and rejects the product. 

A quality controller records detailed information about products with defects and sends it to the supervisor or plant manager to take necessary actions to improve the production process.

Production Manager

A QA Lead is in charge of the QA Team. The role of QA Lead comes with the responsibility of assessing services and products in order to determine that he or she meets the quality standards. He or she develops, implements and manages test plans. 

Process Development Engineer

The Process Development Engineers design, implement, manufacture, mine, and other production systems using technical knowledge and expertise in the industry. They use computer modeling software to test technologies and machinery. An individual who is opting career as Process Development Engineer is responsible for developing cost-effective and efficient processes. They also monitor the production process and ensure it functions smoothly and efficiently.

AWS Solution Architect

An AWS Solution Architect is someone who specializes in developing and implementing cloud computing systems. He or she has a good understanding of the various aspects of cloud computing and can confidently deploy and manage their systems. He or she troubleshoots the issues and evaluates the risk from the third party. 

Azure Administrator

An Azure Administrator is a professional responsible for implementing, monitoring, and maintaining Azure Solutions. He or she manages cloud infrastructure service instances and various cloud servers as well as sets up public and private cloud systems. 

Computer Programmer

Careers in computer programming primarily refer to the systematic act of writing code and moreover include wider computer science areas. The word 'programmer' or 'coder' has entered into practice with the growing number of newly self-taught tech enthusiasts. Computer programming careers involve the use of designs created by software developers and engineers and transforming them into commands that can be implemented by computers. These commands result in regular usage of social media sites, word-processing applications and browsers.

Information Security Manager

Individuals in the information security manager career path involves in overseeing and controlling all aspects of computer security. The IT security manager job description includes planning and carrying out security measures to protect the business data and information from corruption, theft, unauthorised access, and deliberate attack 

ITSM Manager

Automation test engineer.

An Automation Test Engineer job involves executing automated test scripts. He or she identifies the project’s problems and troubleshoots them. The role involves documenting the defect using management tools. He or she works with the application team in order to resolve any issues arising during the testing process. 

Applications for Admissions are open.

Aakash iACST Scholarship Test 2024

Get up to 90% scholarship on NEET, JEE & Foundation courses

JEE Main Important Chemistry formulas

As per latest 2024 syllabus. Chemistry formulas, equations, & laws of class 11 & 12th chapters

PACE IIT & Medical, Financial District, Hyd

Enrol in PACE IIT & Medical, Financial District, Hyd for JEE/NEET preparation

ALLEN JEE Exam Prep

Start your JEE preparation with ALLEN

ALLEN NEET Coaching

Ace your NEET preparation with ALLEN Online Programs

SAT® | CollegeBoard

Registeration closing on 19th Apr for SAT® | One Test-Many Universities | 90% discount on registrations fee | Free Practice | Multiple Attempts | no penalty for guessing

Everything about Education

Latest updates, Exclusive Content, Webinars and more.

Download Careers360 App's

Regular exam updates, QnA, Predictors, College Applications & E-books now on your Mobile

Cetifications

We Appeared in

Animal Product Manufacture and Control Essay

The case against animal product producers, methods of control.

Meat is generally considered an integral part of a healthy diet for people and carnivorous pets such as cats and dogs. However, there also exists a noteworthy vegetarian movement, with extreme members known as vegans. There is a variety of reasons why one may choose to forgo eating meat or animal-based products in general. Supposed health benefits or personal beliefs are usually considered the primary drivers for vegetarians, and vegans tend to base their position on disapproval of the animal cruelty that takes place on farms. However, their opinions are not taken into consideration often, possibly in part due to animal product suppliers exerting control to protect the status quo.

Like most businesses, farms are concerned with efficiency and maximizing profits by minimizing spending. This trend often means that the comfort and potentially well-being of the animals who are used are disregarded, and the treatment may be considered unethical from some standpoints. Meadows (2012) describes how chickens are killed en masse, female pigs are exploited and kept mostly immobile, and cows are killed when their milk production slows. While these practices are appropriate from a purely utilitarian perspective, most people would not enjoy witnessing them in person. As such, empathy plays a significant part in the case against supporting animal product producers, as doing so would reduce their profits and potentially compel them to create better conditions for their livestock.

Some people, mostly vegans, take a more radical stance and draw parallels between animals and humans. Spiegel (1988) begins her book by comparing racism and speciesism, or the tendency of modern humanity to show disdain for animals. She argues that the onset of industrial trends, spurred mostly by the rapid expansion of the European civilization, changed the view of animals from creatures to admire and honor to pests and livestock (Spiegel, 1988). Some people champion the idea that animals deserve the same, or similar, treatment as what humans receive, with specific rights that are enforced. The methods employed by many producers, particularly large-scale firms that benefit from efficiency improvements considerably, would be unethical, if not illegal, in such a situation.

The abuse perpetrated by meat, dairy, egg, and other suppliers that employ animals in their activities becomes still less justifiable as technology advances. Wurgaft (2019) discusses the concept of artificially growing meat for human consumption using samples collected from animals with minimal inconveniences for them. The idea is not yet viable for large-scale implementation, but if the costs can be reduced to a competitive level, the technology may render many meat producers obsolete. Animals can then be released to live their lives in relative freedom, though humanity will still likely have to care for them, as they are fully domesticated. With the emergence of viable alternatives, cruel methods will become morally unjustifiable.

Humans are omnivores, and therefore, it is natural for them to include meat and other animal products in their diet. As such, the current position that views vegetarians, and vegans in particular, as oddities and outliers, appears justifiable. However, the moral questions of animal treatment remain valid, and many vegetarians would be satisfied if livestock were not abused throughout their lives. Necessity is a compelling counterpoint, as the unprecedented numbers of modern humanity demand that producers go to extremes to satisfy our need for food. However, there are also methods of control that are employed by businesses and governments to downplay or avoid the issue and maintain the status quo.

Throughout much of human history, meat consumption was viewed as a symbol of power, the victory of the hunter over the prey, or the success of a farmer. According to Ruby and Heine (2011), people associate omnivorous habits more masculine when compared to vegetarianism, even though vegetarians were seen as more virtuous. It is in the interest of marketers and other people who create societal narratives to maintain this image. Thus, popular culture expressions such as fast food advertisements and depictions of wealthy and successful men often emphasize meat consumption. By contrast, vegetarianism receives considerably less attention, both because members of the movement are a minority and because it is inconvenient to interested parties.

Animal products that may have been less ubiquitous in the past have become popular and irreplaceable through aggressive marketing. According to Guptill, Copelton, and Lucal (2017), milk is an example of this phenomenon, which is known as commodification. It was not especially popular in the United States before the 20th century, but then the government began promoting its production and consumption through a variety of methods. As a result, dairy products became prevalent throughout the national culture, leading to a dramatic increase in demand and the consequent need to match it for suppliers. This change became one of the two primary reasons why dairy production became industrial and possibly dehumanized.

The other cause is the government’s approach to farming, which favored some methods over others with damaging consequences. Guptill et al. (2017) refer to this outcome as the farm crisis, wherein smaller, local producers could not compete due to the restrictions placed on their practices by the government. Meanwhile, large firms with efficient, automated approaches that came at the cost of the animals’ comfort could operate freely and proceeded to saturate the market. As Guptill et al. (2017) note, the opposition to these policies did not result in significant changes, and the practices became normalized. Opponents of changes informed by morality can now refer to the non-viability of the classic farm as an argument.

This point leads to the final form of control employed by the industry and the government, cost. Traditional producers could not compete because their practices incurred higher expenses than those of their inhumane peers, forcing them to set non-competitive prices or forgo profits. The same logic will be correct if a firm switches to non-abusive methods today, as organic products show in the agricultural industry. As such, most animal product suppliers will not commit to the change because of its detriment to their business.

Many of the practices employed by modern animal product manufacturers may be considered abusive to animals. However, they justify themselves to the public by claiming that the methods are necessary, a claim that is valid to some degree. Traditional farming is non-viable in the U.S., though that may be a result of government policies, and advanced technologies such as artificial meat growth are not ready for the market. However, the industry is also responsible for facilitating abuse by promoting the consumption of meat and other animal products. It perpetuates the existing cultural connotations of eating specific products when they benefit its narrative and tries to increase the popularity of its less widespread offerings.

Guptill, A. E., Copelton, D. A., & Lucal, B. (2017). Food and society: Principles and paradoxes (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Meadows, T. (2012). Because they matter. In A. B. Harper (Ed.), Sistah vegan: Black female vegans speak on food, identity, health, and society . New York, NY: Lantern Books.

Ruby, M. B., & Heine, S. J. (2011). Meat, morals, and masculinity. Appetite, 56 , 447-450.

Spiegel, M. (1988). The dreaded comparison: Human and animal slavery . Philadelphia, PA: New Society Publishers.

Wurgaft, B. A. (2019). Biotech Cockaigne of the vegan hopeful. The Hedgehog Review, 21 (1), 52-61.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, July 12). Animal Product Manufacture and Control. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-product-manufacture-and-control/

"Animal Product Manufacture and Control." IvyPanda , 12 July 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/animal-product-manufacture-and-control/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Animal Product Manufacture and Control'. 12 July.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Animal Product Manufacture and Control." July 12, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-product-manufacture-and-control/.

1. IvyPanda . "Animal Product Manufacture and Control." July 12, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-product-manufacture-and-control/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Animal Product Manufacture and Control." July 12, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-product-manufacture-and-control/.

• American Food System Improvement and Ethical Concerns of Industrialization
• Vegetarianism Relation with Health and Religion
• Benefits of Vegetarianism
• Consumer Behavior Theory: Vegetarianism
• Vegan vs. Vegetarian Diets: Impacts on Health
• Soul Food: The Origin and Reasons of Vegetarianism
• Vegetarianism and Its Causes
• Rise of Mental Social Justice
• Sorry, Vegans: Article's Questionable Premise
• Vegetarian Consumer Behaviour
• Animal Welfare vs. Rights: Compare and Contrast
• Negative Impacts of Animal Testing
• Animal Testing: Long and Unpretty History
• Moral Status of Animals: Vegetarianism and Veganism
• The Vancouver Principles of Animal Rights Protection

Advertisement

Supported by

One in Five Milk Samples Nationwide Shows Genetic Traces of Bird Flu

There is no evidence that the milk is unsafe to drink, scientists say. But the survey result strongly hints that the outbreak may be widespread.

• Share full article

By Emily Anthes and Noah Weiland

Federal regulators have discovered fragments of bird flu virus in roughly 20 percent of retail milk samples tested in a nationally representative study, the Food and Drug Administration said in an online update on Thursday.

Samples from parts of the country that are known to have dairy herds infected with the virus were more likely to test positive, the agency said. Regulators said that there is no evidence that this milk poses a danger to consumers or that live virus is present in the milk on store shelves, an assessment public health experts have agreed with.

But finding traces of the virus in such a high share of samples from around the country is the strongest signal yet that the bird flu outbreak in dairy cows is more extensive than the official tally of 33 infected herds across eight states.

“It suggests that there is a whole lot of this virus out there,” said Richard Webby, a virologist and influenza expert at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital.

Dr. Webby said that he believed it was still possible to eradicate the virus, which is known as H5N1, from the nation’s dairy farms. But it will be difficult to design effective control measures without knowing the scope of the outbreak, he said.

The findings also raise questions about how the virus has evaded detection and where else it might be silently spreading. Some scientists have criticized the federal testing strategy as too limited to reveal the true extent of viral spread.

Until Wednesday, when the Department of Agriculture announced mandatory testing of dairy cows moving across state lines, testing of cows had been voluntary and primarily focused on cows with obvious symptoms.

As of Wednesday, just 23 people had been tested for the virus, while 44 people were being monitored after exposure to it, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

A widespread outbreak in cows would pose a greater risk to farm workers, the dairy industry and public health more broadly. Sustained spread among cows would give the virus more opportunities to acquire mutations that make it more transmissible among humans.

The F.D.A. did not provide details on Thursday regarding the number or sources of the samples.

“You’d want to go not just to the places you knew there was activity and cows — you want to go to places where at least there’s no reported” bird flu, Dr. Webby said.

Experts believe that the process of pasteurization, in which milk is briefly heated, should inactivate this bird flu virus, which known as H5N1.

“And when you destroy the virus, it’s going to release genetic material,” said Samuel Alcaine, a microbiologist and food scientist at Cornell University. The genetic fragments left behind are not capable of causing infection.

“It’s not surprising” to find them in milk, he added. “It doesn’t mean that the milk is not safe.”

Federal officials are still conducting the time-intensive tests required to determine whether any viable virus remains in the milk after pasteurization. Scientists have said that prospect is very unlikely.

Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said at a news briefing Wednesday that some federally sponsored researchers had tested for live virus in retail milk but had not found any, a sign that pasteurization had killed the virus before the milk reached grocery shelves.

Dr. Marrazzo cautioned that while the results were a small sample, the findings were “welcome news.”

“To really understand the scope here, we need to wait for the F.D.A. efforts,” she said.

Finding traces of the virus in 20 percent of commercial milk samples does not mean that 20 percent of the nation’s dairy herds are infected, experts cautioned. “It’s too early to try to do that back-of-the-napkin kind of calculation,” Dr. Alcaine said.

Milk from several farms is typically pooled. If the virus turns up in lots of milk samples drawn from one pool, it could mean that many cows are infected — or that a smaller number of infected cows are shedding large quantities of virus, Dr. Alcaine said.

Even in the latter case, however, a 20 percent positivity rate would suggest far more than 33 herds are infected, he noted.

In the Wednesday news briefing, Dr. Donald A. Prater, the acting director of the F.D.A.’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, pointed to the novelty of the research effort. No studies have ever been completed on the effects of pasteurization on the bird flu virus in milk, he said.

Regulators were examining milk at various points in the commercial supply chain, he added, including milk on grocery shelves, as well as studying potential differences among milk products, such as those between whole milk and cream, Dr. Prater said.

Emily Anthes is a science reporter, writing primarily about animal health and science. She also covered the coronavirus pandemic. More about Emily Anthes

Noah Weiland writes about health care for The Times. More about Noah Weiland

• Newsletters
• Account Activating this button will toggle the display of additional content Account Sign out

What Next: TBD

The failures of ‘organic’ farming.

Organic farms try to make their products better for people, but that doesn’t mean better animal welfare.

Listen & Subscribe

Choose your preferred player:

• Apple Podcasts
• Amazon Music

Please enable javascript to get your Slate Plus feeds.

Get Your Slate Plus Podcast

If you can't access your feeds, please contact customer support.

Thanks! Check your phone for a link to finish setting up your feed.

Please enter a 10-digit phone number.

Listen on your phone: RECOMMENDED

Enter your phone number and we'll text you a link to set up the podcast in your app:

We'll only text you about setting up this podcast, no spam.

Listen on your computer:

Apple Podcasts will only work on MacOS operating systems since Catalina . We do not support Android apps on desktop at this time.

Listen on your device: RECOMMENDED

These links will only work if you're on the device you listen to podcasts on.

Set up manually:

How does this work?

We're sorry, but something went wrong while fetching your podcast feeds. Please contact us at [email protected] for help.

Episode Notes

There are regulations regarding how farm animals are transported, how they’re auctioned, how they’re slaughtered—but when they’re living on the farm? That’s where things get cloudy.

Guest: Annie Lowrey , journalist writing on politics and economic policy for The Atlantic .

Want more What Next TBD? Subscribe to Slate Plus to access ad-free listening to the whole What Next family and all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to get access wherever you listen.

Podcast production by Evan Campbell, Patrick Fort, and Anna Phillips.

About the Show

Every Friday, Slate’s popular daily news podcast What Next brings you TBD, a clear-eyed look into the future. From fake news to fake meat, algorithms to augmented reality, Lizzie O’Leary is your guide to the tech industry and the world it’s creating for us to live in.

Lizzie O’Leary is the host of What Next: TBD, Slate’s show about technology, power, and the future. Previously, she created and hosted Marketplace Weekend . She has reported for CNN, Bloomberg News, and the New York Times Magazine, among others. She is also a contributing writer at the Atlantic.

Current H5N1 Bird Flu Situation in Dairy Cows

Domestic Summary

Global summary, risk to humans.

• Related Links

Other Documented Mammalian Infections

States with outbreaks in cattle.

as of 4/24/2024 | Full Report >

Dairy Herds Affected

CDC systems that monitor national, state, and local level influenza data are being used during the current avian influenza A(H5N1) situation. These systems show no indicators of unusual influenza activity in people, including avian influenza A(H5N1).

A multi-state outbreak of HPAI A(H5N1) bird flu in dairy cows  was first reported on March 25, 2024. This is the first time that these bird flu viruses were found in cattle. CDC confirmed one human HPAI A(H5N1) infection  that had exposure to dairy cattle in Texas that were presumed to be infected with the virus. While thought to be rare, this exposure to HPAI A(H5N1) bird flu virus is the first instance of likely mammal to human transmission.

In the United States, since 2022, USDA APHIS has reported HPAI A(H5N1) virus detections  in more than 200 mammals .

While rare, mammals can be infected with highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) A(H5N1) (“H5N1 bird flu”) viruses. Reports of these sporadic infections in mammals have occurred globally amid widespread outbreaks of bird flu infections in wild birds and poultry.

Mammals can be infected with H5N1 bird flu viruses when they eat infected birds, poultry, or other animals and/or if they are exposed to environments contaminated with virus. Spread of H5N1 bird flu viruses from mammal to mammal is thought to be rare, but possible.

Globally, sporadic HPAI A(H5N1) virus infections in mammals have been reported across the continents of Asia, North America, South America, and Europe. More information about the global impact of avian influenza can be found here: Avian Influenza – WOAH – World Organisation for Animal Health.

Specifically, recent HPAI A(H5N1) infections in mammals have been detected in sea lions in Peru and Chile, sea elephants in Argentina, and foxes in Canada, France, and other countries. A list of significant HPAI outbreaks, including in mammals, can be found here: Highlights in the History of Avian Influenza (Bird Flu) Timeline – 2020-2024.

The wide geographic spread of HPAI A(H5N1) viruses in wild birds, poultry, and some other mammals, including in cows, could create additional opportunities for people to be exposed to these viruses. Therefore, there could be an increase in sporadic human infections resulting from bird and animal exposures, even if the risk of these viruses spreading from birds to people has not increased. CDC believes the current risk to the general public from bird flu viruses is low. People who have job-related or recreational exposure to infected birds or animals, including cows, are at greater risk of contracting HPAI A(H5N1) virus. CDC has recommendations related to testing, treatment of HPAI A(H5N1) infection and prevention of exposure to these viruses: Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza A(H5N1) Virus in Animals: Interim Recommendations for Prevention, Monitoring, and Public Health Investigations .

• Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza A(H5N1) Virus in Animals: Interim Recommendations for Prevention, Monitoring, and Public Health Investigations
• Updated Interim Recommendations for Worker Protection and Use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to Reduce Exposure to Novel Influenza A Viruses Associated with Disease in Humans | Avian Influenza (Flu) (cdc.gov)
• Infographic: Protect Yourself From H5N1 When Working With Farm Animals [2 MB, 1 page] Spanish [1.7 MB, 1 page]
• Considerations for Veterinarians: Evaluating and Handling of Cats Potentially Exposed to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza A(H5N1) Virus
• Health Alert Network (HAN) – 00506 | Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza A(H5N1) Virus: Identification of Human Infection and Recommendations for Investigations and Response
• Information for Specific Groups
• Human Infection with Avian Influenza A Virus: Information for Health Professionals and Laboratorians
• Avian Influenza A(H5N1) U.S. Situation Update and CDC Activities
• Human Infection with Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza A(H5N1) Virus in Texas
• Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza A (H5N1) Virus Infection Reported in a Person in the U.S.
• CDC Reports First U.S. Human Infection in 2024 with Variant Influenza Virus
• Technical Update: Summary Analysis of Genetic Sequences of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza A(H5N1) Viruses in Texas

Related webpages

• What CDC Is Doing to Respond to Bird Flu Outbreaks in Dairy Cows and Other Animals in the United States 
• H5N1 Bird Flu: Current Situation Summary
• Bird Flu Virus Infections in Humans
• Avian Influenza in Birds
• Bird Flu in Pets and Other Animals
• Federal Order to Assist with Developing a Baseline of Critical Information and Limiting the Spread of H5N1 in Dairy Cattle: Frequently Asked Questions (usda.gov)
• USDA APHIS Testing Guidance for Labs for Influenza A in Livestock [289 KB, 3 pages]
• USDA APHIS Requirements and Recommendations for HPAI H5N1 Virus in Livestock for State Animal Health Officials, Accredited Veterinarians and Producers [290 KB, 7 pages]
• USDA livestock case definitions [131 KB, 2pages]
• USDA Confirms Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza in Dairy Herd in New Mexico
• USDA, FDA and CDC Share Update on HPAI Detections in Dairy Cattle
• Federal and State Veterinary, Public Health Agencies Share Update on HPAI Detection in Kansas, Texas Dairy Herds
• Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) Detections in Livestock
• Influenza: Not Just for the Birds (usda.gov)  [286 KB, 1 page]
• APHIS Recommendations for Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) H5N1 Virus in Livestock [292 KB, 6 pages]
• Updates on Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI)
• Questions and Answers Regarding Milk Safety During Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) Outbreaks
• Questions and Answers Regarding the Safety of Eggs During Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Outbreaks

In recent years, HPAI H5N1 infections have been detected in mammals including but not limited to wild or feral animals such as foxes, bears, and seals; stray or domestic animals such as cats and dogs; farm animals, such as goats, cows, and mink, and zoo animals such as tigers and leopards. A timeline, which includes mammalian detections of bird flu, can be found here: Highlights in the History of Avian Influenza (Bird Flu) Timeline – 2020-2024

Descargo de responsabilidad: Es posible que en este sitio encuentre algunos enlaces que le lleven a contenido disponible sólo en inglés. Además, el contenido que se ha traducido del inglés se actualiza a menudo , lo cual puede causar la aparición temporal de algunas partes en ese idioma hasta que se termine de traducir (generalmente en 24 horas). Llame al 1-800-CDC-INFO si tiene preguntas sobre la influenza estacional, cuyas respuestas no ha encontrado en este sitio. Agradecemos su paciencia.

To receive email updates about this page, enter your email address:

• Swine/Variant
• Influenza in Animals

Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
• Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
• You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
• CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website.