Making a Killing with Animal Welfare Reform


“When it comes to animal care policies and processes, count on us to lead the way. In fact, we’re recognized by the world’s foremost experts in animal well-being as setting the standard for America’s pork industry – and we’re applying those same best practices to our global operations.”

~ Smithfield Foods:  “Raising the Bar in Animal Care” (Smithfield Foods is the world’s largest pork producer and processor, and kills almost 30 million pigs every year)


During the past 200 years, animal exploitation from backyard breeders to “factory farms” to circuses has been steeped in the animal welfare paradigm. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to find any large corporation using animals or selling animal products that does not boast of either their own high standards of animal welfare, or the high expectations they have of their suppliers. In short, the animal industry actually promotes animal welfare, and that is largely because the animal welfare model overwhelmingly benefits industry not only by providing guidelines which help producers to adopt a more effective business model, but also by assuring consumers that it is possible to breed, raise, exploit, and slaughter animals in an ethical way.

But what are considered “high standards” in animal welfare? High standards generally allow for any well-established industry practice that helps producers to exploit animals in an economically optimal manner, no matter how cruel, harmful, or painful. That is, any cruelty that promotes economically efficient use is acceptable (such as branding, castration, forced insemination, dehorning, detoeing, debeaking, mulesing, tail docking, teeth clipping, forced molting, and more); but cruelty above and beyond that which promotes economically efficient exploitation is considered to be a violation of industry’s “high” welfare standards. In other words, kicking and beating your animals because you enjoy doing so is not okay. Dehorning and castrating your animals without anesthetic because it makes them easier to manage is okay. This definition of “high standards” in animal welfare explains why industry can legitimately make such ludicrous claims in the face of cruelty so severe that most of us refuse to even look at it.

When prominent animal welfare organizations like PETA and HSUS propose animal welfare reforms, such as a move toward “controlled atmosphere killing” or the elimination of cages and gestation crates, their campaigns involve appealing to industry to recognize the long-term economic benefits of investing the capital necessary to make such changes. Such economic benefits include healthier animals who are less stressed, fewer worker injuries, less carcass damage, and greater consumer confidence that animals are treated “humanely.” And sure enough, such economic benefits obviously carry weight, as we can see by the fact that large factory farms like those owned by Smithfield Foods are “leading the way” in phasing out gestation crates over several years in all sow “farms” owned by the company. Think they’re doing this out of concern for the pigs? Think again.


“Smithfield is making the change because customers ‘have told us they feel group housing is a more animal-friendly form of sow housing,’ … Smithfield is still determining the cost of the changeover but does not expect it to dramatically affect prices for its pork products because the expense will be spread out over 10 years and will be offset by production efficiencies,’ Dennis Treacy – vice president for environmental and corporate affairs said… He stressed that the decision to change was based on what makes sense for the business.”

This statement confirms that phasing out crates will make it easier for Smithfield Foods to conduct and grow their operations. And what are their operations? Confining and slaughtering animals – by the millions. Not an activity in which you would expect animal activists to be collaborating, right? And yet, rather than using the same time and resources to promote vegan living, animal advocacy organizations spent over $1.6 million dollars and countless volunteer hours on the campaign to convince Smithfield foods to adopt this more economically-efficient business model.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, animal advocacy organizations also work side by side with the animal industry in developing and promoting “humane” labels for animal foods. Not only does this sort of “product development” consulting provide invaluable public relations assistance for these companies, but it also effectively gives these products the “animal people” stamp of approval when they reach the consumer. Although these programs may appear on the surface to offer greater protection for animals, it is painfully clear that they are designed as an (albeit very clever) PR campaign to increase sales, by making consumers feel better about using animal products. These labels, which include Certified Humane Raised & Handled, Humane Choice, Freedom Food and the Whole Foods 5-Step Animal Welfare Rating Standards, could quite reasonably be viewed as the ultimate betrayal from the perspective of the victims.

The partnership between animal welfare groups and industry to promote economically efficient animal exploitation is considered a “win-win-win” not only for both sides of the partnership, but for consumers as well. Consumers are assured that they can be excused for their indulgences in the products of animal misery, due to these so-called “higher standards” of welfare, and welfare groups win by receiving tens of millions of donation dollars annually for acting as the industry “regulators” and the developers of these ridiculous labels.

But the biggest winners, by far, are the animal exploiters themselves, who not only receive consulting advice by “welfare experts” and prominent animal activists, but are also given awards and special endorsement from advocacy groups. The payoff they receive in increased consumer confidence must have them laughing all the way to the bank. Meanwhile, the most basic rights of an increasing number of animals are still being sold out to fulfill the trivial desires of those who insist on consuming and using the products that come from their bodies.

Almost everyone agrees that animals ought not to suffer any more pain or harm than is “necessary”, and that no one should inflict unnecessary pain or suffering on another. But what is considered “necessary” has historically and legally meant whatever is necessary to optimize the economic efficiency of any socially-accepted use of animals. It is still the case – as it always will be as long as animals are property and economic commodities – that animal welfare standards permit any cruelty, no matter how severe, as long as it results in optimizing economic efficiency.

But times and circumstances are changing, and so are attitudes toward the meaning of the word “necessary“. Today, an increasing number of people are becoming aware that almost all of our uses of animals are for nothing more than our pleasure, amusement, or convenience – the habitual consumption of animal-based foods; the custom of wearing animal-based fabrics; the tradition of watching animals participate in trivial (and very harmful) activities such as racing or performing. None of these uses can be considered necessary according to any coherent definition of the word necessary.

As more people become aware of how beneficial the dietary aspects of veganism are for our health and the environment, and recognize that being vegan is simply a matter of basic justice, veganism will be recognized more and more widely as nothing less than an ethical imperative and a moral baseline. Certainly, there will always be those who refuse to acknowledge the fact that our uses of animals require the violation of the most basic of rights, regardless of the scale on which these practices are carried out. But the abolition of animal slavery is nothing less than the most important social justice issue of our time. When this fact becomes widely recognized… whose side will you be on?


with Dan Cudahy

Angel Flinn is Director of Outreach for Gentle World — a vegan intentional community and non-profit organization whose core purpose is to help build a more peaceful society, by educating the public about the reasons for being vegan, the benefits of vegan living, and how to go about making such a transition.

Dan Cudahy is author of Unpopular Vegan Essays: Unpopular Essays Concerning Popular Violence Inflicted On The Innocent.


Image: Stoonn /

Related Stories:

Legal Slavery in the 21st Century

The Importance of Being Vegan

Vegan: More than a Diet, More than a Lifestyle

Love This? Never Miss Another Story.


Patti E Shackelford


Penny T.
Penny T.4 years ago

The Count down has Begun!!!

Beth H.
beth Hall4 years ago

It always comes down to greed from man and the animals always suffer!

Diane L.
Diane L.4 years ago

Real mature and intelligent behavior, isn't it, Erica? When some have nothing to contribute as far as being on topic, they merely resort to personal attacks and drag in those who haven't commented in a long time, but want to insuinuate there is some "gang mentality" or coersion because one of us happens to have another as a Care.2 "friend". Heck, if one of these two mental midgets bothered to check my Care.2 online friends, they'd find about 1/3 of them are vegan.

Iknow you haven't commented on any Care.2 discussion for some time, and I haven't on these discussions which are actually a bit "old" in quite awhile, either. I wouldn't have commented again, if my name hadn't been dragged in yet again, accused of "always fighting with somebody", when truth be known, I don't "fight" with anyone........I voice my opinions and when personally attacked and called names, I defend myself. Funny how that seems to only happen with a few vegans who have little capacity for being open-minded or contributing anything positive to a discussion, isn't it?

Erica B.
Erica B.4 years ago

Huh...I haven't made a comment here since Sept 8th, so why am I even being mentioned? And why is it that when an omnivore (who gets their meat from the most ethical/humane/organic sources humanly possible) happens to CIVILLY disagree with a vegan, the omnivore is accused of making inappropriate abusive comments? And this accusation is coming from a vegan who sent me a PERSONAL MESSAGE that attacked me AND another subscriber I didn't even know very well!

This is why I have been mostly staying away from care2, and spending my time on other "Save The World" websites instead, that are better monitored. Care2 doesn't have enough moderators to keep nasty people with vendettas in check. It's sad, because many people that would otherwise have investigated finding more humane sources of food, are turned off by the "all or nothing," "meat eaters are murderers" attitude. What a great way to recruit people to your vegan lifestyle...insult the heck outta them! BRAVO!!

Charlie Parkinson


Thanks for the info.


Charlie Parkinson

"Charlie, I could care less what you think, based on your inability to express yourself. The fact you sent the same inept comment several times speaks for itself. Is it a lack of nutrients to the brain? I think the insults can be traded indefinitely, but the "bottom line" if you think about it, is a respect for others having a different point of view. It's obvious that some don't have that ability or capability to accept that THEIRS is not shared. Sad. Why is it that some who want to push veganism resort to the sarcasm and insulting behavior?"


Pot, meet kettle.

Enjoy your day!! :)

Diane L.
Diane L.4 years ago

Wow, how mature of you, Brianna. Kye, I might remind you that YOU have been blocked by many and reported to Care.2 for sending nasty, personal messages thru Care.2's system. You are on MY "blocked" sender list. Brianna, why is it that you feel the need to attack me for my opinions simply because I don't agree with YOU? I DON'T go on Care.2 to attack everyone or am "always fighting with everyone", just don't agree with everything posted, and am not a vegan myself, but do have many vegan friends on Care.2. I guess that might surprise you? If your only recourse to discuss issues is to attack ME, personally, that speaks volumes about your "position" or I.Q.

Kye can't even spell my name right, and she has sent nasty, persoal messages to some of the people she refers to as being MY Care.2 friends. Who my Care.2 "friends" are is public record. What does that matter?

Charlie, I could care less what you think, based on your inability to express yourself. The fact you sent the same inept comment several times speaks for itself. Is it a lack of nutrients to the brain? I think the insults can be traded indefinitely, but the "bottom line" if you think about it, is a respect for others having a different point of view. It's obvious that some don't have that ability or capability to accept that THEIRS is not shared. Sad. Why is it that some who want to push veganism resort to the sarcasm and insulting behavior?

Kye J.
michelle l.4 years ago

Charlie P I agree with you 100% Brianna K made mention of Diane L always fighting with some one.Yes that is very correct.I have reported her many times for her inappropriate behaviour. She is in a little group with Erica B and Lilithe M. I advise you Charlie P to view their profiles and then you will understand why Dianne L and the others make the inappropriate abusive comments that they do.Especially Dianne L.

Brianna K.
Past Member 4 years ago

Angel has a lot of great articles and some yummy recipes which I appreciate as my culinary skills are somewhat
Have a beautiful night :)