Human Rights

Conversations about veganism usually focus on the rights and welfare of animals, since this is the defining feature of veganism. However, many of us view our vegan beliefs as part of a broader, intersectional concern with justice, recognising that systems of exploitation rarely operate in isolation.

This is often called intersectional veganism, which refers to the idea that different forms of oppression can overlap and reinforce one another. While human oppression and animal exploitation are not identical, they do share certain underlying features. To name just a few: Objectification, dehumanisation and the prioritisation of profit over wellbeing are broadly shared between different forms of human and non-human animal oppression.

Throughout history, exploitation has often been justified by portraying a group as “lesser,” “other,” or “naturally subordinate”. Claims about hierarchy, necessity, the natural order and tradition have repeatedly been used to defend harm to humans. Many vegans see parallels in how non-human animals are treated today, and how we justify our role as an oppressor of exploited animals.

This doesn’t mean human and animal oppression are the same, and it doesn’t mean that we should make broad generalisations or direct comparisons. They are distinct in important ways, but examining the mechanisms involved is important for understanding the interconnected nature of all oppression.

Human Rights Within Animal Agriculture

Even if you were uninterested animal rights or welfare p, there are signficiant human rights concerns connected to animal agriculture that are worth considering.

Slaughterhouse Workers

Meat and poultry processing work is physically demanding and often extremely dangerous. Workers in slaughterhouses consistently experience elevated risks of injury, stress, anxiety, depression, and reduced psychological wellbeing compared to many other industries (1, 2).

Research suggests that the emotional toll of mechanised killing, combined with high-speed, repetitive labour and insecure working conditions, contributes to these mental health issues (1). Personal testimonies from slaughterhouse workers reveal deep trauma and distress. (8)

Sociological studies have also found correlations between slaughterhouse employment and increased arrest rates in surrounding communities, compared with areas dominated by other industries (3). While these findings are complex and influenced by many social and economic factors (slaughterhouses tend to be established in poorer communities where locals are least able to mount a legal challenge), they point to potential community-level impacts associated with the industry.

Many slaughterhouse workers are migrants or individuals from economically vulnerable backgrounds, which can make it difficult to advocate for safer conditions or fair treatment. In some of the poor, rural communities these slaughterhouses are established in, work can be scarce and many workers simply cannot afford to resign, no matter how poor their conditions may be.

From a human rights perspective, this raises concerns not only about animals, but about the underpaid and overworked people whose labour sustains the industry, and ensures that meat, dairy and eggs are cheap and readily available to the rest of us.

Environmental Justice

Large industrial animal agriculture facilities, including slaughterhouses and concentrated animal feeding operations (factory farms), generate substantial waste, odours, and emissions.

Research has shown that these facilities are often located near low-income communities and communities of colour (6). Federal data in the United States indicates that nearly half of slaughterhouses in the US are located in high-poverty areas, and about one-third are in communities with large populations of people of colour (6).

While similar systematic studies are more limited in Europe, broader research on environmental injustice in Europe suggests that industrial pollution, including from large farms and food production, tends to disproportionately impact economically disadvantaged and ethnic minority communities (7).

These patterns are consistent with broader findings in environmental justice research, which suggests that polluting industries are more likely to be established in areas with less political and economic power to resist them. Residents living near such facilities have reported reduced quality of life, unpleasant odours, respiratory irritation, and concerns about long-term health effects.

Barriers to Relocation and Advocacy

The objection that is often raised is to simply ask: “Why don’t these people movr?” Unfortunately it is seldom that easy, since communities affected by industrial animal agriculture often face significant obstacles when trying to improve their situation.

Lower property values can make it difficult to sell homes and relocate, while limited financial resources will compound this by restricting access to legal support. In some cases, residents lack the political influence needed to oppose new facilities or demand stronger regulation.

Unsurprisingly, the people least able to cope with it usually end up bearing a disproportionate share of environmental and health risks of slaughterhouses and other animal agriculture facilities.

Regulatory and Legal Challenges

Efforts to expose unsafe or unethical practices within animal agriculture can also encounter significant legal barriers.

In the United States, so-called “ag-gag” laws have been introduced in a number of states. These laws restrict undercover investigations and whistleblowing in agricultural facilities, often by criminalising unauthorised recording or misrepresentation to gain access (5).

Public health researchers and legal scholars have argued that such laws reduce transparency and discourage reporting of unsafe or unethical practices (4). Several ag-gag laws have been challenged in court, and some provisions have been struck down as unconstitutional on free speech grounds (7).

From a civil liberties perspective, this raises important questions about how legislators prioritise corporate protection over public accountability, health, and animal welfare. Animal agriculture industries have significant power, and their efforts at lobbying elected representatives and legislators are often successful.

Consumer Influence and Collective Impact

It can be tempting to place all responsibility for harm on corporations, and indeed, much of the blame lies with them. However, markets are shaped by demand.

When consumers collectively reduce their consumption of animal products, through either reduction or organised boycott, they influence which industries remain profitable. This is not about assigning personal blame, but about recognising shared influence and collective bargaining power.

Many vegans understand their choices as a form of economic non-participation. We choose not to financially support systems that we believe cause harm to animals, workers, or communities. We know that one individual boycotting an industry has minimal impact, but the power of boycott is only ever seen in the collective action of many.

No single purchase changes the world, and there is no truly ethical consumption under capitalism. Yet, large-scale shifts in consumer behaviour can reshape industries over time, and reduce the power of corporate interests by taking away at least some of their profit, and therefore their ability to influence public policy and cause harm.

A Broader Ethical Perspective

A lot of what has been outlined here may sound like leftist praxis, but it is worth mentioning that veganism does not require adopting a specific political ideology. People arrive at it from many different motivations and political viewpoints. This includes concern for animals, environmental sustainability, health, faith, social justice, or a combination of these. There are vegan liberals, vegan conservatives and plenty of vegan anarchists.

Exploring the links between animal agriculture and human rights does mean we are blithely comparing human and animal issues, but it helps broadens our ethical lens. Considering the wider impact of animal agriculture industries invites us to consider not only how our choices affect non-human animals, but also how they affect other humans as well.

Bibliography

1) Slade, J. (2023). The Psychological Impact of Slaughterhouse
Employment: A Systematic Review.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10009492/
2) Leibler, J. H. et al. (2017). Prevalence of Serious Psychological
Distress Among Slaughterhouse Workers.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28506017/
3) Fitzgerald, A., Kalof, L., and Dietz, T. (2009). Slaughterhouses and
Increased Crime Rates.
https://faunalytics.org/slaughterhouses-and-increased-crime-rates/
4) Ceryes, C. A., and Heaney, C. D. (2020). Ag-Gag Laws: Public Health
Implications. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7195182/
5) Animal Legal and Historical Center. Overview of Ag-Gag Laws.
https://www.animallaw.info/intro/ag-gag-laws
6) Winders, D. J. (2021). Slaughterhouse Workers, Animals, and the
Environment. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8694297/
7) Wikipedia contributors. Environmental racism in Western Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_racism_in_Western_Europe
8) BBC – Confessions of a Slaughterhouse Worker.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-50986683

Support independent, research-based advocacy

Helping keep free, educational content online

No ads, no paywalls, no affiliate links