Dr. Michael Fox: Animal Rights

Article Tools

Image Gallery

Print

E-mail

Comments

RSS

We have, for instance, actually been called heretics by a representative of the American Farm Bureau. The man based his charge on the notion that we're defying the Judeo-Christian tradition — as set forth in the Bible — by denying that man has "dominion" over animals . . . a word that he chooses to believe implies a God-given right to exploit our fellow creatures in any way we like.

Probably more serious — and at least a bit more difficult to answer — is the claim that today's intensive agricultural systems are necessary to feed a hungry world. Well, even if we discount the fact, pointed out in the study on organic farming commissioned by former Secretary of Agriculture Bob Bergland, that wholistic agricultural methods can compete with factory farms in terms of productivity and such, the truth of the matter is that North American agriculture is not doing all that much to provide food to the truly hungry peoples of the world.

For example, 85% of all the grain exported by the U.S. is used as animal feed . . . and it's only the well-to-do in the receiving nations who are able to afford to buy the meat raised on that American grain. Furthermore, we import some of that meat ourselves . . . and not only is it, as you mentioned before, perhaps contaminated with the banned agricultural chemicals that we're selling overseas, but it's also — especially in the case of meat produced in some South American countries — being raised on land that was once available to the poor of those nations for growing their subsistence crops! As you can see, then, the claim that U.S. agriculture must continue to intensify in order to provide food for the starving peoples of the earth really can't be defended.

But the most insidious argument used against us, and one that's still believed by a great number of intelligent and well-meaning people, is that animals don't really suffer when kept under the sort of conditions that we've been talking about. Neil Black, for instance — one of the spokespersons for the Livestock Conservation Institute — has tried to repudiate our efforts by claiming that animals don't have the same requirements as people, and that it's anthropomorphic to claim that they do. Well, these creatures do share many requirements with humans . . . including the need for food, water, fresh air, social interaction, and the opportunity to get away from each other occasionally. By claiming that this isn't the case, Mr. Black is saying — in effect — that most of the recent comparative biomedical research on animals is invalid.

PLOWBOY: Can you present some scientific evidence to prove that animals do experience many of the same physical reactions and feelings that we do?

FOX: Well, obviously, we can't really know how much pain, pleasure, fear, anxiety, or whatever an animal is experiencing . . . we can only draw analogies.

RSS | Comments | E-mail | Print