Rainbow

Dylan Rainbow
Greg McClure
Writing 39C
28 May 2016
Vegetarianism: The Simple Way to End Factory Farming
Historically, meat has been a fundamental part of the human diet. Evidence for early meat
consumption, such as stone tools for butchering and animal bones with corresponding cut marks
on them, dates back to an estimated 2.5 million years ago (Mayell). From the hunter-gatherers of
old to present-day day animal farms, the very nature of human meat consumption has been
revolutionized. While our early ancestors hunted and killed animals to survive, modern society
takes this once-precious food for granted. People have grown accustomed to the increasing
availability of meat, and it has evolved from a symbol of affluence into a staple for many
societies around the world.
Unfortunately, the demand for more and more meat has resulted in sacrifices of animal
welfare. The vast majority of meat is derived from animals raised on factory farms, which are
notorious for cruel and inhumane treatment of animals. The number of suffering animals
continues to grow because the human population is still increasing and more people around the
world are shifting to a meat-based diet (Hoag). Global meat consumption has been growing
steadily, and this trend will most likely continue. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the
United Nations estimates that by 2050, global meat production will increase to 455 million
metric tons, compared to the 315 million produced globally in 2014 (Alexandratos 17). As the
human population demands increasing amounts of meat, more and more animals will suffer in

Rainbow 2

large-scale farms that simply cant afford to provide each animal with conditions satisfactory for
their instinctive needs.
As the dominant and intellectually superior species, humans have a moral obligation to
minimize suffering resulting from human activities. From the evidence gathered over the last
several decades, it is apparent that it is not practically possible to raise animals for meat on a
large scale without inflicting suffering. I shall follow Andrew Linzeys definition of suffering:
harm that an animal experiences characterized as a deficiency in (or negative aspect of that
animals well-being (Linzey 10). I believe the science has made clear that animals are indeed
capable of such suffering. Since people are not required to eat meat for health or survival
reasons, the exploitation of billions of animals simply to consume them is not justifiable by any
means. Furthermore, the operations responsible for raising the vast majority of animals for meat
contribute substantially to environmental issues such as global warming and deforestation. Thus,
the modern consumption of animals is not only ethically unacceptable but also too ecologically
damaging to remain feasible in the long term.
Therefore, humanity must take action to reduce its dependency on animal meat,
especially that derived from factory farms, which are indisputably sources of immense suffering.
As a solution to this problem, I advocate the same thing that animal rights advocate Peter Singer
argued for in Animal Liberation over thirty years ago: vegetarianism. I use this term, however,
not in the strict traditional sense of not eating any animals, but in the sense of not eating animals
that can and do suffer in the production of that meat. Since the government has been ineffective
at regulating industrial animal farms, individual consumers must accept responsibility to protect
both the environment and animal welfare by means of their purchasing power.

Rainbow 3
I would like to stress here that I am not claiming that eating meat is fundamentally

wrong. Animals do eat animals, after all, and I dont believe humans have to be any exception.
But, as Singer eloquently put it, we must ask ourselves, not: is it ever right to eat meat? but: is it
right to eat this meat? (Singer 173). The primary issue addressed in this essay is that the
practices and conditions underlying meat production in the present day are examples of what I
shall call unjustifiable brutality. They are unjustifiable because the pain that farms cause to
animals is far greater than the pleasure that humans gain by eating the meat produced. Those
who neglect this statement are often exhibiting speciesism, which, as Richard Ryder and others
have affirmed, is an irrational and indefensible form of discrimination. As long as animals can
suffer, they deserve the same moral consideration that we would afford to any fellow human
being.

Factory Farms: Animal Suffering and Awareness

According to the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, the production
of farm animals for food has shifted over the last 50 years from traditional, decentralized farm
systems to more concentrated systems with fewer producers. This production model, sometimes
known as factory farming or industrial farm animal production, is characterized by confining
large numbers of animals of the same species in relatively small areas, generally in enclosed
facilities that restrict movement (Putting Meat on the Table 5). These conditions allow
producers to minimize costs, but often at the expense of animal welfare. The ASPCA estimates
that 99 percent of farm animals in the United States are raised on factory farms ("Factory
Farms"), which puts the total number of animals on factory farms in the US each year at over 9
billion ("Farm Animal Statistics: Slaughter Totals").

Rainbow 4
Well-known author and animal rights activist Peter Singer described the atrocities of

factory farming in his influential 1975 book Animal Liberation. Singer says that factory farms
treat animals like machines and will adopt almost any practice that results in a cheaper
conversion ratio (Singer 98)that is, anything that will allow the animals to eat less, but produce
more. The ways in which factory farms minimize expenses have serious welfare implications for
the animals. Under such conditions, according to Singer, animals lead miserable lives from birth
to slaughter (98-99). The most morally repugnant example, he says, is the production of veal
(Singer 127), which is the flesh of young calves. Calves are taken from their mothers soon after
birth and placed into a small wooden stall, roughly 2 feet by 4 feet, and tethered by a chain
around their neck so that they cannot turn around. The stall contains no straw or other bedding,
since the calf may eat it and thus spoil the paleness of his flesh. It is here that the calf will spend
the next 13 to 15 weeks of its life, and it is only taken out to be slaughtered (Singer 129).
Granted, 1975 was quite a long time ago; however, recent documentation confirms that
many of the practices and suffering that Singer described in Animal Liberation still apply to
modern factory farms. The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (PCIFAP), a
project of the Pew Charitable Trusts, was formed to conduct a comprehensive, fact-based and
balanced examination of key aspects of the farm animal industry ("National Commission). In
2008, the PCIFAP issued a comprehensive report of its findings after a 2 -year examination.
The report states that a primary concern about IFAP (a term which essentially means factory
farming) is the restriction of animals natural behavior, and that wire cages for layer hens and
gestation crates for sows are extreme cases (Mench 6). Figure 1 depicts the confinement of hens
in such cages, which are so small that the animals cannot even spread their wings. Furthermore,
high animal concentration can lead to stress and abnormal behaviors, and management practices

Rainbow 5

such as beak trimming, tail docking, and dehorning are performed without pain relief and are
both acutely and chronically painful (Mench 7). Thus, a significant portion, if not the majority,
of the welfare problems associated with factory farms have persisted even since the publication
of Animal Liberation. (This is largely due to the lack of laws and regulation, as I will show in a
later section.)

Figure 1: Laying hens in a typical battery cage. (Photo from Farm Sanctuary)

The issues concerning animal welfare are largely hidden from the public due to
misleading terminology and phrasing. In Animal Equality (2001), Princeton graduate and animal
rights advocate Joan Dunayer discusses how deceptive language conceals the cruel conditions
and treatment of animals. She states that egg-laying hens are confined to wire cages with four to
six additional hens in which they cannot lift a wing, and yet one hen keeper has said of the
100,000 caged hens in his factory, They hardly have to move to get food or water (Linzey
128). As Linzey notes, neither do human prisoners who are chained to a wall. In a more
appalling example, Linzey describes how the runts among newborn piglets are sometimes
killed: enslavers hold them by their hind legs and swing them so that their head slams against the
floor. Many of the pigs are still conscious after this, but the industry calls this murder method
euthanasia (127). The industrys use of misleading terminology such as this is specific and

Rainbow 6

intentional. According to Linzey, the National Cattlemens Association has instructed members
not to say that branding, dehorning, and castration cause pain, but instead short-term
discomfort (131). These euphemisms and positive descriptions of what are actually incredibly
brutal conditions deceive people into thinking that the lives of the animals they eat were
fulfilling and pleasant before slaughteranother word which the industry, unsurprisingly, avoids
(Linzey 137). Thus, many people are simply unaware of the true nature of the conditions within
the animal farm industry.

Speciesism
Despite the indisputable pain and suffering I have just described, people find excuses to
ignore or discount the significance of such animal suffering. Many of these excuses can be
characterized as speciesism, a term coined by Dr. Richard Ryder in 1970. Ryder is a
psychologist, author, and animal advocate who became known in the 70s as a member of the
Oxford Group, which began to speak out against animal experimentation and other animal
issues. In his 1989 book Animal Revolution, Ryder states that species alone is not a valid
criterion for cruel discrimination (Ryder 6). The justification for this statement stems from the
notion that different species may have physical or other differences, but those do not nullify the
most important similarity among all sentient life formsthe capacity to suffer (6).
This use of suffering as the criterion for moral consideration dates back to Jeremy
Bentham, an English philosopher who famously wrote, The question is not, Can they reason?
nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? (Singer 8). Singer agrees that the ability to suffer is the
vital characteristic that determines whether a being deserves equal consideration (Singer 8).
(Note, however, that equal consideration does not imply equal rightsthey are not the same.)

Rainbow 7

Thus, one cannot point to humans superior intelligence or any other unique feature to justify our
tyranny over animals. To do so would be irrational and speciesist, which, as Singer points out, is
no more valid than racism or sexism (Singer 9). Speciesism certainly helps to explain why so
much animal suffering has persisted; however, we must overcome this obstacle to human
reasoning in order to achieve a more ethically sound society.

Factory Farming and the Environment

While the horrendous cruelties imposed on animals alone should warrant the abolishment
of intensive animal farming, it is also clear that ethical beliefs and behaviors do not always
coincide, and for this reason animal welfare by itself not been enough to convince Americans to
stop eating large quantities of meat. Fortunately for animal advocates, the environmental impacts
of factory farming provide the human race with strong incentives, consistent with its own
societal interests, to reduce the amount of meat it produces. Figure 2, for instance, shows the
resources used to produce the meat for a single
hamburger.
According to the Pew Commission on
Industrial Farm Animal Production, these
operations adversely affect all environmental
media (Halden 9). Key concerns include the
unsustainable use of limited freshwater for feed
production, animal care, and slaughterhouses;
contamination of soil caused by the year-round
deposition of excess nutrients, chemicals and

Figure 2: What It Takes To Make A Quarter-Pound

Hamburger. By Kevin Uhrmacher/NPR

Rainbow 8

pathogens; and greenhouse gas emissions that, at 18% globally, even exceed the emissions
caused by the entire transportation sector (Halden 7, 9, 30). The report concludes that, due to
these ecological impacts, the present industrial model of farm animal production is not
sustainable in the long term (Halden 7). Therefore, if society is to ensure a safe and healthy
environment for ourselves and for future generations, we must actively reduce our dependency
on meat derived from these harmful industrial animal farms.

Barriers to Action
Although stricter regulation of the animal farming industry would be welcome, these
changes would be minimal (by necessity, since most producers could not afford to implement
large changes all at once) and thus would not reduce animal suffering or environmental impacts
to an acceptable level in a timely manner. Also, governmental resources are limited, and any new
regulations would require large numbers of additional employees to be effectively enforced.
Furthermore, The PCIFAP states in its report that even small-scale and extensive farming
systems, where animals are raised outdoors and feed on forage, face similar welfare issues
exposure to extreme weather conditions, disease, predators, and perhaps lack of adequate
nutrition (Mench 5, 13). So, even if it were feasible, simply reverting to more traditional methods
of raising animals would not solve the welfare problem, nor the environmental consequences.
Unfortunately, it has become apparent by now that the federal government is extremely
unreliable when it comes to putting the necessary changes into law. Historically, the agricultural
industries have forestalled on-farm animal welfare regulation by preventing bills introduced into
Congress from reaching the floor for a vote (Mench 55). There are only two federal laws
providing any protection for farm animals, and neither apply to the actual on-farm raising of the

Rainbow 9

animals. The first, passed in 1873, is the 28-Hour Law, which requires that animals are unloaded,
watered and fed for 5 consecutive hours after every 28 hours of transport (Mench 55). The
second is the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, first passed in 1958, which stipulates that
livestock be rendered insensible to pain prior to slaughter (Mench 55). Even these minimal laws
are highly flawedneither of them apply to poultry, which represents the overwhelming
majority of farm animals ("Factory Farms"). The conclusion we must draw from this information
is that the reliance on legislation to solve the problems with factory farming would be naive and
likely ineffective.

The Simple Solution

I have shown that relying on government to regulate the meat production industry is both
unreliable and impractical. Thus we must look elsewhere for the solution to our animal suffering
and environmental problems. Fortunately, Peter Singer provides us with a simple way to improve
both of these situations simultaneously, and that is to reduce the amount of meat we consume.
According to the PCIFAP report, the primary means for individual consumers to influence
animal production practices is via their purchasing choices (Mench 55). The way this works is
simple supply and demand economicsif products are not bought, they will not be produced. As
Singer says, the usual forms of protest and political action will never bring about major reform as
long as people are willing to buy the products of intensive farming (Singer 173). Thus, what is
needed is a fundamental change in perspective towards our treatment of animals, and a shift to
vegetarianism would embody that change.
It is impossible to condemn factory farms for their treatment of animals while still
consuming meat on a regular basis, for this represents a moral inconsistency. By purchasing

Rainbow 10

meat, every single person that buys animal products is actively contributing to the continued
practice of factory farming and its cruel methods. Vegetarianism, as Singer notes, is a form of
boycott, and is every individuals opportunity to take a stand and demonstrate that he or she
actually cares about animal welfare (Singer 175).
Contrary to popular belief, a vegetarian diet is not difficult to survive on. In fact, the
evidence shows that vegetarians and vegans tend to be healthier in many categories than those
who eat meat on a regular basis. A study conducted in 2009, which analyzed data involving more
than 76,000 participants, found that vegetarians were, on average, 25% less likely to die of heart
disease ("Becoming a Vegetarian"). Other studies indicate that vegetarians may also have lower
risk for certain cancers and Type 2 diabetes ("Becoming a Vegetarian"). Although certain
nutritional deficiencies in vegetarians do occur, such as for vitamin B12, it is not difficult to
account for these through supplements or fortified foods ("Vegetarianism in a Nutshell"). These
personal health benefits make vegetarianism an even more alluring option, and with meat
substitutes becoming more accessible and tasty, a meat-free diet has never been easier.
Singer even contends that putting an end to factory farming through vegetarianism might
help to solve another serious problemworld hunger. The reason for this is that animals raised
for meat consume much more food than they end up producing for humans. It takes a whopping
21 pounds of protein fed to a calf to produce just a single pound of animal protein for human
consumption (Singer 178-179). Thus, industrial animal farming methods do not help to feed the
worlds huge population as some may claim; rather, they severely aggravate it. Singer concludes
that the food wasted by animal production in the affluent nations would be sufficient, if
properly distributed, to end both hunger and malnutrition throughout the world (Singer 180).

Rainbow 11

Considering these implications, embracing vegetarianism on a large scale seems a trivial lifestyle
change that reaps massive benefits for all involved.

Conclusion
Industrial animal farms undoubtedly jeopardize the health of our environment in addition
to animal well-being. The implications of these issues are severe, and with so much at stake, we
cannot allow this industry to continue to prosper and grow. We also cannot, however, rely on our
government or others to make these ethical decisions on our behalf. Since factory farms exist
because of individuals, each one of us has a moral responsibility to make a change, and that
necessary change is to cease eating animals. Each person that refuses to consume animal meat
saves a relatively small but significant number of animal lives. And if enough people make this
change, intensive animal farming will eventually cease to exist.
Of course, one may then raise the question of whether it is morally objectionable to
consume any animal-derived products, such as milk and eggs. In other words, should we all
become vegans? In this case, it is crucial to remember the reason for vegetarianism: to avoid
animal suffering. So, if it turns out that there is a way to use and consume animal products while
still allowing the animals to live long and fulfilling lives, then I believe we would not be morally
obligated to be vegans. The issue, however, is much more complex than that, and cannot be
answered in the same way that I have argued for vegetarianism, since the use of animal products
does not necessarily involve killing or exploiting the animal. Perhaps if and when the problems
concerning factory farming are resolved, society can begin to formulate an answer to that
question and others regarding the human treatment of animals.

Rainbow 12
Works Cited

Alexandratos, Nikos. "World Food and Agriculture: Outlook for the Medium and Longer
Term." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 96.11 (1999): 5908-914. Web. 9 May 2016.
"Becoming a Vegetarian." Harvard Health. N.p., 1 Oct. 2009. Web. 28 May 2016.
<http://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/becoming-a-vegetarian>.
"Factory Farms." ASPCA. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 May 2016. <http://www.aspca.org/animalcruelty/factory-farms>.
"Farm Animal Statistics: Slaughter Totals." RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 May 2016.
<http://www.humanesociety.org/news/resources/research/stats_slaughter_totals.html>.
N.d. Farm Sanctuary. Web. 26 May 2016. <http://www.farmsanctuary.org/learn/factoryfarming/chickens/>.
Halden, Rolf U., and Kellogg J. Schwab. Environmental Impact of Industrial Farm Animal
Production. Rep. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 May 2016.
Hoag, Hannah. "Humans Are Becoming More Carnivorous." Nature.com. Nature Publishing
Group, 2 Dec. 2013. Web. 27 May 2016. <http://www.nature.com/news/humans-arebecoming-more-carnivorous-1.14282>.
The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production was formed to conduct a
comprehensive, fact-based and balanced examination of key aspects of the farm animal
industry. This comprehensive 2008 report based on a two-year study documents how industrial
farm operations impact the environment, including the contamination of water resources,
contamination of soil, poor air quality, and emission of greenhouse gases. The report cites
countless scientific studies by both governmental agencies and by independent researchers. The

Rainbow 13

report concludes that current IFAP practices are unsustainable, and that even if rates of meat
consumption are reduced to recommended levels, the industry would still cause significant harm
to public health and the environment.
Linzey, Andrew. Why Animal Suffering Matters: Philosophy, Theology, and Practical Ethics.
Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.
Mayell, Hillary. ""Evolving to Eat Mush": How Meat Changed Our Bodies." National
Geographic. National Geographic Society, 18 Feb. 2005. Web. 9 May 2016.
Mench, Joy A. The Welfare of Animals in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Rep. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 25 May 2016.
Mench, Joy A. The Welfare of Animals in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Rep. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 25 May 2016.
The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production was formed to conduct a
comprehensive, fact-based and balanced examination of key aspects of the farm animal industry.
This report, based on a two-year study, examines the well-being of animals in industrial farm
animal production. The report cites numerous studies and sources to provide an overview of
welfare issues such as confinement to small spaces, restriction of natural behaviors, facility
quality, and painful management practices. The paper also presents possible avenues for
improving animal welfare, each with its own strengths and weaknesses.
"National Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production | About Us." National Commission
on Industrial Farm Animal Production | About Us. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 May 2016.
<http://www.ncifap.org/about/>.

Rainbow 14

Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America. Rep. The Pew
Charitable Trusts, Apr. 2008. Web. 25 May 2016.
<http://www.ncifap.org/_images/pcifapsmry.pdf>.
Ryder, Richard D. Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes towards Speciesism. Oxford: Berg,
2000. Print.
Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. New York, NY: New York Review of, 1990. Print.
Peter Singer, a noted bioethicist and animal rights advocate, discusses the various prejudices and
arbitrary discriminations that humans hold toward animals. Singer argues that human tyranny
over animals causes an amount of pain and suffering that can only be compared to that resulting
from the tyranny of white humans over black humans. Singer documents the horrifying
conditions of factory farms and cites scientific studies to back up his claims that many animals
suffer just as humans can. He argues that speciesism cannot be justified, and that animals should
be offered the same moral considerations that we afford to fellow human beings. He presents
vegetarianism as a simple way to reduce animal suffering and human starvation.
Uhrmacher, Kevin. What It Takes To Make A Quarter-Pound Hamburger. Digital
image. National Public Radio. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 May 2016.
"Vegetarianism in a Nutshell." Vegetarianism in a Nutshell. The Vegetarian Resource Group,
n.d. Web. 28 May 2016. <http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/nutshell.htm>.