In our increasingly fractured and hyper-partisan society, people put a lot of stock statements about what they are and are not against, particularly online. Yet all too often, these statements function as little more than affirmations, meant as a declaration to ourselves and others about how we ‘feel’ about something, without that translating into any meaningful indication of how we live our lives.
This phenomenon can be seen in no more certain terms than in our professed position against animal cruelty. If you identify yourself as being ‘anti animal cruelty’ or declare that you ‘don’t support factory farming’, this will be a widely popular stance. Yet, it becomes much more controversial when you put those beliefs into practice by boycotting animal agriculture and becoming vegan. This is hard for vegans to understand because surely your objections to animal agriculture lose most of their meaning if you continue to choose to fund it? Just as no self-respecting progressive will don’t take someone someone who declares themselves anti-racist or a feminist seriously while voting for Trump. We understand that beliefs require actions, not just words.
In the case of animal agriculture, none of us are getting a vote on this issue. The only way we can express our viewpoint is through boycotts, collective organising and our individual consumer decisions. Our ‘disapproving’ of something doesn’t translate into a meaningful moral objection until we do something to put that into practice. Lets put this into perspective with some polling data:
- 49% of Americans agree with the statement, “I support a ban on the factory farming of animals.”
- 47% support a ban on slaughterhouses.
- 33% support a ban on all animal farming.
- 70% “have some discomfort with the way animals are used in the food industry.”
- 69% think “factory farming of animals is one of the most important social issues in the world today.”
You would be forgiven for assuming, given these figures, that factory farming at least would be widely boycotted in the USA, and anywhere else where these beliefs are widely shared. Yet in the US, only about 5% of the population are vegetarian, and it is estimated that 99% of livestock in the US are factory-farmed. This means that despite almost half of all Americans supporting a ban on factory farming, and over two-thirds believing that factory farming is one of the most important social issues in the world today, the vast majority of Americans are still buying factory-farmed animal products.
When considering these statistics, it is important to remember how the American and other industrialised food systems are set up. Food deserts dominate many low-income communities, where people do not have easy access to plant-based foods. For some people, with little time, energy, or even the space to cook, factory-farmed convenience foods and fast food takeout are all too easy to reach for. For some people, there are real barriers to avoiding factory-farmed meat, and a lack of access can explain at least some of the people who oppose factory farming but continue to fund it.
However, given the fact that in most supermarkets, plant-based staples like rice, dried pasta, noodles, beans, chickpeas, lentils, and frozen/canned veg represent some of the cheapest options, it is hard to believe that this factor accounts for even half of those who continue to fund factory farming, despite their professed beliefs. In progressive spaces, very few people admit to eating factory-farmed animals, yet statistically, most of them must be lying, or are ignorant of how prevalent factory farming is.
It is very possible that most people just do not understand the fact that if they buy bacon from just about any supermarket, the pig who was slaughtered to provide it would have almost definitely been factory-farmed. Likewise, very few affordable restaurants or fast-food locations offer any animal products that aren’t factory-farmed. When you order a cheeseburger at McDonalds, sausages at a cafe, or grab an egg sandwich at the supermarket, you are directly funding factory farming. Do people just not know this? Or do they choose not to think about it?
A couple of years ago, I asked a question on my blog, for those working in food service: How many times has a customer asked you about the sourcing of your animal products? Since then I’ve asked this same question of friends, and even servers working in cafes or restaurants that I have into conversation with. Most of them tell me that they can’t recall any customer ever asking this question, and the ones who told me that this is fairly regular, are mostly working in higher-end restaurants where the question is more about quality than ethics. If people care enough to profess their heartfelt opposition to factory farming, why do they not care enough to even ask about the origin of their food? Is it just politeness, social awkwardness, or is it that they’d rather not know?
It would be naive not to acknowledge that there is a vast apparatus of propaganda at work to keep our money flowing into the pockets of animal agriculture corporations, and enormous social pressure to conform to the herd mentality of meat eating. Breaking with social convention is not easy. The belief that factory farming is wrong is widespread, but it is clear that going out of your way to boycott it is not. It is unclear how you would even go about that – there are almost no industry certification labels that are worth the paper they’re printed on. Most people have no way of knowing, and certainly not observing, how the animal on their plate lived and died.
Many people who hold the genuine, deeply-held conviction that factory farming is wrong believe that the industry needs reform, rather than abolition. Their logic is that people are always going to eat animals, which is why they do it too, but the industry should be “nicer” to animals and pollute the planet less. And yet, these people are rarely ever able to explain how exactly that reform is going to happen. We can hardly expect animal agriculture industries to be interested in changing their hugely profitable business model because of the feelings of their customer base, while those same customers are still going to buy their products regardless of their professed objections about how those products were made. Animal agriculture corporations do not care how you feel about their products, so long as you’re still going to buy them.
The issue of factory farming is unlikely to be debated at the ballot box, or subject to public referendum. The only way we get to vote on this issue is with our money. If we do not approve of the behaviour of any corporation, and we can reasonably avoid relying on their products, then it follows that we should be engaged in boycotts. It is frustrating however, that progressives so often feel that boycotting animal agriculture is pointless because it “doesn’t work,” but soon change their tune when we’re talking about a boycott against an author because of their problematic beliefs or actions, Amazon in the interests of workers rights, or a Pro-Israeli corporation in the interest of Palestinians.
We know that boycott works, but we like to pretend it doesn’t as soon as we’re talking about products that we benefit from. Food seems to be subject to this strange exception to our usual thinking and ethical stances. It is if we believe that food alone, among all our other consumer decisions, cannot be subject to moral judgment. I have seen this belief stated explicitly several times – this one only last week. We have to eat, but how we eat should be just as much informed by our ethics as any other purchasing decision we make. If you really do oppose animal exploitation, animal cruelty, and factory farming, it is long past time you put your money where your mouth is. Why not at least try it?
Support an independent blogger and activist
Advocating for animals through educational content
