Rainbow 1

Dylan Rainbow
Greg McClure
Writing 39C
28 May 2016
Vegetarianism: The Simple Way to End Factory Farming
Humans, as well as our earlier ancestors, have been eating animals for a long time.
Evidence for early meat consumption, including stone tools for butchering and animal bones
with corresponding cut marks on them, dates back to an estimated 2.5 million years ago
(Mayell). Since then, humans have grown accustomed to the taste of meat, and it has evolved
from a luxury food into a staple for many societies around the world.
In the time since we began eating animals, the human race has developed significant
technological advancements and undergone dramatic social movements. With these maturations
in mind, one might be tempted to assume that our treatment of animals would have also changed
with respect to these aspects of society, such as the civil rights movement. Surely, as humans
began to realize the equality of all humans regardless of race or sex, we must also have begun to
extend more equality to other life forms as well.
Indeed, human treatment of animals has certainly changed; thanks to growing activist
groups such as PETA and the ASPCA, awareness for animal welfare issues has never been
higher. Despite the increase in advocacy for the ethical treatment of animals, however, there
remains one central problem: more animals are suffering today than ever before. This may be
hard to believe. How can awareness increase while the problem gets worse? The simple answer
lies in the global consumption of meat and how this meat is produced. The vast majority of meat
is derived from animals raised on factory farms, which are notorious for cruel and inhumane

Rainbow 2
treatment of animals. The number of suffering animals continues to grow because the human
population is still increasing and more people around the world are shifting to a meat-based diet.
Global meat consumption has been growing steadily, and this trend will most likely continue.
The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations estimates that by 2050, global
meat production will increase to 455 million metric tons, compared to the 315 million produced
globally in 2014 (Alexandratos 17). As the human population demands increasing amounts of
meat, more and more animals will suffer in large-scale farms that simply cant afford to provide
each animal with conditions satisfactory for their instinctive needs.
As the dominant and intellectually superior species, humans have a moral obligation to
minimize suffering resulting from human activities. From the evidence gathered over the last
several decades, it is apparent that it is not practically possible to raise animals for meat on a
large scale without inflicting suffering. With regards to animals, I shall follow Andrew Linzeys
definition of suffering: harm that an animal experiences characterized as a deficiency in (or
negative aspect of) that animals well-being (Linzey 10). For the sake of brevity, I will assume it
unnecessary to prove that animals are indeed capable of suffering. Since people are not required
to eat meat for health or survival reasons, the exploitation of billions of animals simply to
consume them is not justifiable by any means. Furthermore, the operations responsible for
raising the vast majority of animals for meat contribute substantially to environmental issues
such as global warming and deforestation. Thus, the modern consumption of animals is not only
ethically unacceptable but also too ecologically damaging to remain feasible in the long term.
Therefore, humanity must take action to reduce its dependency on animal meat,
especially that derived from factory farms, which are indisputably sources of immense suffering.
As a solution to this problem, I advocate the very same thing that Peter Singer argued for in

Rainbow 3
Animal Liberation over thirty years ago: vegetarianism. I use this term, however, not in the strict
traditional sense of not eating any animals, but in the sense of not eating animals that can and do
suffer in the production of that meat.
I would like to stress here that I am not claiming that eating meat is fundamentally
wrong. Animals do eat animals, after all, and I dont believe humans have to be any exception.
But, as Singer eloquently put it, we must ask ourselves, not: is it ever right to eat meat? but: is it
right to eat this meat? (Animal Liberation 173). The primary issue addressed in this essay is that
the practices and conditions underlying meat production in the present day are examples of what
I shall call unjustifiable brutality. They are unjustifiable because the pain that farms cause to
animals is far greater than the pleasure that humans gain by eating the meat produced. Those who
neglect this statement are often exhibiting speciesism, which, as Richard Ryder and others have
affirmed, is an irrational and indefensible form of discrimination. As long as animals can suffer,
they deserve the same moral consideration that we would afford to any fellow human being.

Factory Farms and Animal Suffering

Factory farming describes a form of intensive farming in which livestock are raised in
densely populated environments. (Insert brief history of factory farming here). Also known as
concentrated animal feeding operations, these farms are designed to produce at maximum
efficiency, but they do so largely at the cost of animals welfare. Factory farming is a
controversial topic not only because of the way the farms treat their animals, but also for the
various adverse effects that these giant operations have on the environment and public health.
The ASPCA estimates that 99 percent of farm animals in the United States are raised on factory

Rainbow 4
farms ("Factory Farms"). This puts the total number of animals raised on factory farms in the
United States each year at over 9 billion ("Farm Animal Statistics: Slaughter Totals").
Well-known author and animal rights activist Peter Singer described the atrocities of
factory farming in his 1975 book Animal Liberation. Singer says that factory farms treat animals
like machines and will adopt almost any practice that results in a cheaper conversion ratio
(Animal Liberation 98)that is, anything that will allow the animals to eat less, yet produce
more. The ways in which factory farms minimize expenses have serious welfare implications for
the animals. Under such conditions, according to Singer, animals lead miserable lives from birth
to slaughter (98-99). Singer is not exaggerating here, and he goes on to demonstrate that
virtually no portion of these animals lives is exempt from suffering in some form or another.
Granted, 1975 was quite a long time ago; however, recent documentation confirms that
many of the practices and suffering that Singer described in Animal Liberation still apply to
modern factory farms. The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (PCIFAP), a
project of the Pew Charitable Trusts, was formed to conduct a comprehensive, fact-based and
balanced examination of key aspects of the farm animal industry ("National Commission). In
2008, the PCIFAP issued a comprehensive report of its findings after a 2 -year examination.
The report states that a primary concern about IFAP (a term which essentially means factory
farming) is the restriction of animals natural behavior, and that wire cages for layer hens and
gestation crates for sows are extreme cases (Mench 6). See Figure 1. Furthermore, high animal
concentration can lead to stress and abnormal behaviors, and management practices such as beak
trimming, tail docking, and dehorning are performed without pain relief and are both acutely
and chronically painful (Mench 7). Thus, a significant portion, if not the majority, of the welfare
problems associated with factory farms have persisted even since the publication of Animal

Rainbow 5
Liberation. (This lack of advancement is largely due to the lack of laws and regulation, as I will
show in a later section.)

Factory farms make every effort to hide this suffering from public view. In Animal
Equality (2001), Princeton graduate and animal rights advocate Joan Dunayer discusses how
deceptive language conceals the cruel conditions and treatment of animals. She describes how
egg-laying hens are confined to wire cages with four to six additional hens in which they cannot
lift a wing, and yet one hen keeper has said of the 100,000 caged hens in his factory, They
hardly have to move to get food or water (Linzey 128). As Linzey notes, neither do human
prisoners who are chained to a wall. In a more appalling example, Linzey describes how the
runts among newborn piglets are sometimes killed: enslavers hold them by their hind legs and
swing them so that their head slams against the floor. Many of the pigs are still conscious after
this, but the industry calls this murder method euthanasia (127). The industrys use of
misleading terminology such as this is specific and intentional. According to Linzey, the National
Cattlemens Association has instructed members to say that branding, dehorning, and castration
cause short-term discomfort rather than pain (131). These euphemisms and positive
descriptions of what are actually incredibly brutal conditions deceive people into thinking that

Rainbow 6
the lives of the animals they eat were fulfilling and pleasant before slaughteranother word
which the industry, unsurprisingly, avoids using (Linzey 137).

Speciesism
Despite the indisputable pain and suffering I have just described, people find excuses to
ignore or discount the significance of such animal suffering. Many of these excuses can be
characterized as speciesism, a term coined by Dr. Richard Ryder in 1970.

Factory Farming and the Environment

While the horrendous cruelties imposed on animals alone should warrant the abolishment
of intensive animal farming, it is also clear that ethical beliefs and behaviors do not always
coincide, and for this reason animal welfare by itself has not been enough to convince Americans
to stop eating large quantities of meat. Fortunately for animal advocates, the environmental
impacts of factory farming provide the human race with strong incentives, consistent with its
own selfish interests, to reduce the amount of meat it produces.

Barriers to Action
Although stricter regulation of the animal farming industry would be welcome, these
changes would be minimal (by necessity, since most producers could not afford to implement
large changes all at once) and thus would not reduce animal suffering to an acceptable level. The
PCIFAP states in its report that even small-scale and extensive farming systems, where animals
are raised outdoors and feed on forage, face similar welfare issuesexposure to extreme weather

Rainbow 7
conditions, disease, predators, and perhaps lack of adequate nutrition (Mench 5, 13). So, even if
it were feasible, simply reverting to more traditional methods of raising animals would not solve
the welfare problem.

Even if regulation of the industry could solve the problems involving animal welfare and
environmental impacts, it has become apparent by now that the government is not capable or not
willing to put the necessary changes into law. The welfare issues associated with factory farming
have been known for decades, and yet there are only two federal laws providing any protection
for farm animals. Both of them are over fifty years old, and they are only relevant to a small
portion of farm animals lives. The first, passed in 1873, is the 28-Hour Law, which requires that
animals are unloaded, watered and fed for 5 consecutive hours after every 28 hours of transport
(Mench 55). The second is the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, first passed in 1958, which
stipulates that livestock be rendered insensible to pain prior to slaughter (Mench 55).

The Simple Solution

I have shown that relying on legislation to regulate the meat production industry is both
unreliable and impractical. Thus, the only option remaining is for action to be taken by
individuals. According to the PCIFAP report, the primary means for individual consumers to
influence animal production practices is via their purchasing choices (Mench 55).

Conclusion
We must not rely on government to make our ethical decisions for us.

Rainbow 8
Works Cited
Alexandratos, Nikos. "World Food and Agriculture: Outlook for the Medium and Longer
Term." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 96.11 (1999): 5908-914. Web. 9 May 2016.
"Factory Farms." ASPCA. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 May 2016. <http://www.aspca.org/animalcruelty/factory-farms>.
"Farm Animal Statistics: Slaughter Totals." RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 May 2016.
<http://www.humanesociety.org/news/resources/research/stats_slaught
er_totals.html>.
N.d. Farm Sanctuary. Web. 26 May 2016.
<http://www.farmsanctuary.org/learn/factory-farming/chickens/>.
Linzey, Andrew. Why Animal Suffering Matters: Philosophy, Theology, and
Practical Ethics. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.
Mayell, Hillary. ""Evolving to Eat Mush": How Meat Changed Our Bodies." National
Geographic. National Geographic Society, 18 Feb. 2005. Web. 9 May 2016.
Mench, Joy A. The Welfare of Animals in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Rep. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 25 May 2016.
"National Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production | About Us." National Commission
on Industrial Farm Animal Production | About Us. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 May 2016.
<http://www.ncifap.org/about/>.
Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. New York, NY: New York Review of, 1990. Print.

Rainbow 9