It’s the old argument little kids use with their parents: “But Mom, Billy did it too. He does it all the time. No fair.”
An opinion piece on the Beef Magazine website popped up on the Pack News Wire concerning the topic of the “Emotion in Animal Welfare.” – (Interesting already)
It seems a Purdue University associate professor of animal behavior and well-being spoke before a group in Nebraska and offered some very odd spin on that well-being part. She apparently showed a photo of hens in battery cages beside a photo of two parrots in a cage. And used the Billy-does-it-too argument. Of course, it’s more like – ‘I burned the house down, but Billy broke a lamp, so no fair punishing me.’
And she is quoted as saying, “When we think about animal welfare, everyone has a different idea of what that means.” – No, not really. And later, the associate professor is quoted on the topic of what meat producers should be saying, – “Make sure people know no one is more concerned about our animals than us, and that we are committed to their health and welfare.”
And in the middle of that editorial, I found a link to another piece submitted by the Center For Consumer Freedom (a name not really related to what the group wants).
It starts off trying to define the terms ‘animal rights’ versus ‘animal welfare.’ The writer suggests “animal welfare requires science-based, sometimes difficult choices.” Actually, that’s right – and science-based is where people like me like to go. But then the text turns away from science.
It is suggested hens in cages have a lower mortality rate than hens in cage-free and free-range environments. So stuff the hens in cages where they suffer 24/7 and they’ll live longer. Forget the suffering, even within the notion that the suffering goes for a longer period of time.
It seems their ‘science’ fails to take other factors directly related to the hen’s health into account. What’s the term I need here … what is it? …. oh yeah, that’s science limited to the narrow confines of a cage.