Ethical Issues in the News

The Ethics of ‘Cruelty-Free’ Labeling

We can imagine a world where animals reared for slaughter live happily outdoors, with plenty of food and space to move around, surrounded by other happy animals. However, the reality is quite different. The average North American pig is born in a gestation crate, designed to prevent his artificially inseminated mother from moving. He’s castrated without anaesthetic to prevent the ‘boar taint’ that ruins the taste of a male pig’s muscles. He has his tail docked (also unanaesthetised), spends his days inside unable to move around, has sore joints, and may never see sunlight. Within a few months, he’s fully grown and ready for slaughter (having been selectively bred to reach maximum size in minimum time). To put the point succinctly, the lives of most animals reared for slaughter are nasty, brutish, and short.

Many of us are familiar with these facts, and so eat fewer (or no) animal products, and recently, retailers have responded to this trend by releasing “cruelty free” animal products. Whole Foods is set to join this trend, by releasing a range of meat products labeled “animal compassionate,” to indicate that the animals were raised humanely.

Consumer pressure seems to be resulting in more ethical industry. But what do labels like “cruelty free”, or “animal compassionate”, really mean? They suggest that the animals haven’t suffered at all; perhaps even that they have led happy lives. However, animals whose meat is presently labeled “certified humane”, for example, may have been subject to castration within the first week of life, electric prodding, as well as tail docking. Consumers who are aware that many animals reared for slaughter suffer greatly might see labels such as “certified humane” and begin buying animal products again– of course, this is the whole point of such labels – but were they to know the animals’ true conditions, perhaps they wouldn’t. Such labeling, in other words, runs the risk of duping consumers into buying animal products that they wouldn’t consider buying if they knew more. The effect of this labeling could be to succeed in restoring the market for animal products, while not fully redressing the conditions of the animals. Consequently, while animals reared for slaughter might be living slightly less awful lives than previously, there may be considerably more of them grown to live these still pretty awful lives. While animals reared for slaughter might be living slightly less awful lives than previously, these new conditions are insufficient to count as genuinely 'cruelty-free'.

What is needed is more detailing labeling, or for animal welfare groups (independently of farmers) to set standards for labels like “cruelty free” and then for the government to vigorously police the practices of those producers who claim to meet these standards.

But even if these strategies are adopted, there is another worry. Should we be eating animal products at all? Even if the animals reared for slaughter live extremely happy lives, should we slaughter them as food? Labels like “cruelty free” and “certified humane” almost suggest the animals’ consent in their slaughter. But in killing animals to eat, we separate them from their loved ones, who then suffer due to their absence. Moreover, what does our practice of eating meat say about us? If we are not put off by the thought of eating the flesh of another creature – one whose meat we do not need to eat to be healthy, and one who, under different circumstances, might have been a beloved pet – are we the sorts of people we want to be? Do we want our children to be people who are not remotely perturbed by the thought of eating flesh? Or do we want them to love animals so much that the thought of unnecessarily eating one makes them feel ill?

January 18, 2007

These essays are intended to foster debate and discussion on the issue addressed. This essay does not necessarily reflect the views of the Parr Center for Ethics or any of its fellows.