Animals 2011, 1
105
commonly believed, for reasons of risk but for reasons of ethics; in part for reasons of animal ethics.
Similar reasons (i.e., fear of harming cattle) have, in part, driven European rejection of bovine
somatotropin (BST). Rodeos such as the Houston Livestock Show have, in essence, banned jerking of
calves in roping, despite opposition from the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association, who
themselves never show the actual roping of a calf on national television.
Inevitably, agriculture has felt the force of social concern with animal treatment—indeed, it is
arguable that contemporary concern in society with the treatment of farm animals in modern
production systems blazed the trail leading to a new ethic for animals. As early as 1965, British society
took notice of what the public saw as an alarming tendency to industrialize animal agriculture by
chartering the Brambell Commission, a group of scientists under the leadership of Sir Rogers
Brambell, who affirmed that any agricultural system failing to meet the needs and natures of animals
was morally unacceptable [10]. Though the Brambell Commission recommendations enjoyed no
regulatory status, they served as a moral lighthouse for European social thought. In 1988, the Swedish
Parliament passed, virtually unopposed, what the New York Times call a “Bill of Rights” for farm
animals, abolishing in Sweden, in a series of timed steps, the confinement systems currently
dominating North American agriculture [11]. Much of northern Europe has followed suit, and the
European Union is moving in a similar direction, and sow stalls must be eliminated in by 2011 [12].
Although the U.S. has been a latecomer to agricultural issues, things have moved rapidly, with
referenda pressed by HSUS abolishing sow stalls, battery cages, and veal crates across the U.S. My
own work attests to this tendency. In 2007, over two days of dialogue, I convinced Smithfield Farms,
the world’s largest pork producer, to phase out gestation crates. In 2008, the Pew Commission, on
which I served as the advocate for farm animal welfare, called for the end of high confinement animal
agriculture within ten years, for reasons of animal welfare, environmental despoliation, human and
animal health, and social justice. Most dramatically, I was able to broker an agreement between the
Humane Society of the United States and the Colorado Livestock Association passing a jointly
sponsored farm animal welfare law in Colorado in 2008, abolishing sow stalls and veal crates.
The agriculture community in the U.S. has been far behind societal concern. There is one
monumental conceptual error that is omnipresent in the agricultural industry’s discussions of animal
welfare—an error of such magnitude that it trivializes the industry’s responses to ever-increasing
societal concerns about the treatment of agricultural animals. When one discusses farm animal welfare
with industry groups or with the American Veterinary Medical Association, one finds the same
response—animal welfare is solely a matter of “sound science”.
Those of us serving on the Pew Commission, better known as the National Commission on
Industrial Farm Animal Production, encountered this response regularly during our dealings with
industry representatives. This commission studied intensive animal agriculture in the U.S. [13]. For
example, one representative of the Pork Producers, testifying before the Commission, answered that
while people in her industry were quite “nervous” about the Commission, their anxiety would be
allayed were we to base all of our conclusions and recommendations on “sound science”. Hoping to
rectify the error in that comment, as well as educate the numerous industry representatives present, I
responded to her as follows: “Madame, if we on the Commission were asking the question of how to
raise swine in confinement, science could certainly answer that question for us. But that is not the
question the Commission, or society, is asking. What we are asking is, ought we raise swine in