An article in the series "Crying for Standards"

The Cruelest Food, the Kinder and the Kindest

Most forms of hunting and all livestock farming share a common purpose, meat production, yet the ways in which meat ends up on the plate are diverse. Today's ethically responsible meat-eater, therefore, faces a challenging task to determine the quality of life and death of an animal before choosing from the menu. Yet how should one compare the life of a wild animal, which roams free yet might suffer a prolonged death, with an animal that passes its days in a factory farm and ends them in an industrial slaughterhouse?

This difficult question is addressed by Audrey Eyton, British diet guru and campaigner for Compassion in World Farming, in her book "The Kind Food Guide".

Acknowledging that we are not all capable of sacrificing steak for a diet of carrots, Eyton proposes a compromise. "Forget about the all or nothing approach and start to think about the cruelest food, the kinder food and the kindest food," she says. In the category of the "cruelest food" she includes battery chickens and pork products from closely confined animals. Game shot in the field, meanwhile, belongs in the kindest category, or, to use the author's words, "foods you can feel better about." Since the book is directed primarily at a British audience, her failure to categorise the meat of whales is unsurprising. However, provided that the quality of the killing is comparable to that in hunts for game, it is reasonable to suppose that they belong in the same category.

In choosing which animals belong in which category, Eyton places more emphasis on the quality of an animal's life than on the quality of its death. Hence, game is a kind food "despite concern about suffering when killed." On this point, however, her position on animal welfare and ethics is at odds with that of the UK government.

The UK government has stated that the potential for animal suffering in commercial whaling makes it unacceptable (a view shared by Australia), and that whalers should aspire to standards for killing required of slaughterhouses. Yet at the same time, the UK condones a system of livestock production that includes factory farms with conditions that are far from optimal, transportation of live animals over long distances to slaughter, and industrial slaughterhouses where animal welfare regulations are compromised for reasons of economics and efficiency (see "Stuck Pigs Still Squeal").

Given the UK position that the animal welfare aspect of commercial whaling must be compared to livestock production, the High North Alliance asked UK whaling commissioner C.I. Llewelyn if his government was prepared to undertake a comparative analysis of the welfare of whales and livestock which took into account the total lifespans of the animals in question.

Llewelyn responded: "Your idea of a welfare audit of all aspects of an animal's life, including methods used to slaughter it, is an interesting one, but we would not accept the basic premise that seems to underlie it, namely that quality of life before slaughter can compensate for in-humane methods of slaughter." (see correspondance Llewlyn/HNA)

High North Alliance regrets that the UK commissioner placed his own, seemingly defensive, interpretation on the basic premise behind a "welfare audit". The premise for such an audit is not that a quality life can compensate for an inhumane death. Rather, it is that if we want to eat meat and at the same time minimise the suffering of animals, it is necessary to consider both the quality of an animal's death and of its life.