SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
animal rights
Can Preventive Policies Like the OCTOPUS Act Truly Stop Animal Suffering?
Already passed in Washington State and California, this bill seeks to ban octopus farming altogether before it ever becomes reality and before a powerful lobby emerges to defend it.
Nov 27, 2024
Octopuses, with three hearts and remarkable intelligence, remain among the most intriguing non-human species ever studied. Despite their unsuitability for domestication, multiple plans are emerging to farm them intensively.
The most worrying proposal comes from the company Nueva Pescanova, which aims to establish Europe’s first octopus farm in the Canary Islands, as well as breed and kill over 1 million octopuses per year.
In the United States, hope takes the form of the OCTOPUS Act. Already passed in Washington State and California, this bill seeks to ban octopus farming altogether before it ever becomes reality. Animal rights organizations are not stopping there, as they plan to introduce this preventive bill in at least five additional states.
What exactly are preventive policies? Why are they becoming a preferred strategy for animal rights organizations?
Preventive policies function as a preemptive strike, making it possible to ban or regulate activities that have the potential to cause harm. Such policies are particularly valuable in the context of animal welfare because they can stop inhumane practices before they become ingrained, or before powerful lobbying groups form around them. As the old English proverb goes: “Better safe than sorry.”
Why do animal rights organizations favor preventive policies?
One of the most powerful, albeit challenging, ways of countering animal suffering at scale is through policy change. Over the past three decades, preventive policies have gained momentum as a key tool for environmental protection. More recently, animal rights organizations have also turned to this strategy as a way of protecting animals.
The OCTOPUS Act stands as a promising example of how we can protect animals before cruelty becomes entrenched.
Preventive policies are also more politically feasible. At present, octopus meat is caught wild, and local fishermen have not been targeted by the policy. They are even in favor of the OCTOPUS Act because it will protect their activities. There is less resistance to such a ban because no industry currently exists for farming octopuses. Contrast this with efforts to end factory farming for chickens or pigs, where deeply entrenched lobbies make change difficult.
Overall, preventive policies lay the groundwork for long-term, sustainable change. They can create a ripple effect, setting a precedent that can inspire other countries to follow suit. Eurogroup for Animals has already suggested that the European Union should consider similar legislation: “If the U.S. can do it, the E.U. can too.”
Do preventive policies live up to the expectations?
While preventive policies are powerful, they are not without drawbacks. Policies take a long time to draft, introduce, pass through the appropriate legislative bodies, and, at last, implement. In the interim, harmful practices may even develop in other jurisdictions. Preventive policies do not offer the immediate relief that animal advocates are hoping for.
Another concern is that restricting a practice through legal means could give rise to covert practices that are even more harmful or make it more difficult to ensure animal welfare standards. The demand for octopus meat could lead to illegal activities, such as black market trade or trafficking.
It is also challenging to quantify the precise impact of any one policy on animal suffering. Animal protection is multifactorial. Policies are just one piece of the puzzle that includes advocacy efforts, campaigns, public awareness, and social pressure as well as shifts in cultural attitudes. While the OCTOPUS Act may prevent octopus farming in the United States, how much animal suffering will be reduced? We cannot assume that harm will be entirely eradicated without continued effort across multiple fronts.
How can we ensure that preventive policies make a difference?
We must endorse a holistic approach to ensure that policies like the OCTOPUS Act carry the weight we intend. Science and research should inform the drafting of legislation, ensuring that laws are grounded in deep understanding of animal cognition and welfare. Simultaneously, advocacy campaigns and public pressure help generate the social momentum to push these policies forward.
Creative expressions—whether through art, film, or photography—can also play a significant role in raising awareness, in fostering empathy for animals, and in driving change. My Octopus Teacher is a brilliant example of this. While the impact of these efforts is even harder to quantify, they are often the spark that leads to legislative change.
Preventive policies alone are not a silver bullet, but they are an essential tool in the fight for animal welfare. The OCTOPUS Act stands as a promising example of how we can protect animals before cruelty becomes entrenched.
May this bill pass in many other states, create change internationally, and set a precedent to safeguard the lives of billions of animals.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Outraged Over False Claims of Pet Eating? Consider the True Horrors of Factory Farms
What we do to billions of animals legally in the U.S. food system is far more extensive, not to mention ghastly, than much of the animal sacrifices that may occur in other people’s religious rituals.
Oct 13, 2024
The stories about Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, eating pets have been debunked. Even the woman who filed a police report accusing Haitian migrants of stealing her cat apologized when she later found her cat in her own basement. Sadly, despite being proven false, the damage from these unfounded claims has been severe. Haitians living in Springfield have been subject to hate crimes and threats from people who believe the lie and have coupled their outrage with bigotry to terrorize a community of migrants who are living and working legally in the community through the Temporary Protective Status designation.
Despite the fact that there is no substantiation for the stories, a friend tried to convince me that Haitians are really, truly eating cats and dogs. The evidence, he insisted, came from police bodycam footage. As it turned out, the footage he was talking about was from an arrest of a woman—who was not Haitian—in another part of Ohio who allegedly killed and ate a cat. This woman was born and raised in America and apparently has a mental health disorder. When I pointed these facts out to my friend, he still didn’t acknowledge his error. Instead, he sent me a description of Vodou (aka Voodoo), a religion practiced by many Haitians, which included descriptions of animal sacrifice. He wrote that it would be better if this religion died out and its immigrant practitioners assimilated into American culture.
Perhaps this particularly pernicious and bigoted moment in our polarized society could be a wake-up call to become a bit more introspective and cultivate some moral consistency in how we treat others.
My head was spinning. There were so many ways I could respond. Should I focus on helping him to acknowledge that his original claim was false? Should I point out that his Irish family and my Jewish family were vilified for their cultural differences when they came to this country and invite him to reflect upon his negative judgments about newer immigrants? Should I talk about the range of religious injunctions, not confined to Vodou, which cause harm to animals? I didn’t know where to begin.
Because we’d discussed animal cruelty many times in the past, after mentioning all the points above, I further responded that what we do to billions of animals legally in the U.S. food system is far more extensive, not to mention ghastly, than much of the animal sacrifices that may occur in other people’s religious rituals. Moreover, I pointed out, he was an enthusiastic participant in the cruelty we inflict on cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, and other animals raised for food because he regularly consumes meat, dairy, and eggs. Until now, he’d never expressed much concern about the welfare of animals, often telling me that he cares more about people than animals. Suddenly, along with millions of other Americans who erroneously believe Haitians are eating dogs and cats, he claims to care a lot.
In our culture, most people recoil at the thought of eating dogs and cats and believe it would be wrong to do so. But if it’s wrong to eat dogs and cats, then how is it right to eat pigs—known to be as or more intelligent than dogs—or to consume cows and chickens, both able to feel pain just as acutely as cats and cockatiels do? If we look inward to consider who we eat, we may discover justifications but little disgust or moral outrage.
And yet, the abuse we inflict upon billions of farmed animals each year is on a scale nearly unimaginable. For example, dairy cows in the United States are forced to produce a calf every year, and when they are born, the newborns are taken away from their distraught mothers on their first day of life. We then take the milk meant for the calves for ourselves. The cows are then forced to produce 5 to 10 times the amount of milk they would naturally produce to feed their young, resulting in mastitis, a painful udder infection necessitating antibiotic treatment in about half the dairy cows in the United States. After years of this cycle of artificial insemination, birth, and perpetual milking, their milk production declines. At that point, the cows are sent to slaughter, usually to become hamburger or processed meat.
What about chickens and turkeys, whose names we hurl as an insult of cowardice (for the former) and stupidity (for the latter) even though these birds are brave and intelligent? Almost all of them live the entirety of their lives in crowded, ammonia-saturated buildings; are debeaked without painkillers to prevent them from pecking each other to death in their confinement; and, if they are being used for egg production, are likely caged so tightly they cannot even stretch a wing.
Where is the outrage? Where is the disgust? In her book Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows, psychologist Melanie Joy describes the invisible belief system, which she calls carnism, that leads us to eat certain animals while protecting others. It is this invisible belief system that explains our horror at the thought of people eating pets—a horror we might conceivably express around the dinner table as we gnaw on the rib of a pig or the wing of a hen.
I’d like to hope that the false accusations made against Haitian migrants will help us realize the glass houses we’re living in so that we stop throwing stones. Perhaps this particularly pernicious and bigoted moment in our polarized society could be a wake-up call to become a bit more introspective and cultivate some moral consistency in how we treat others. And then maybe we’ll each take a step toward minimizing the harm we cause humans and nonhumans alike.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Measure J in California's Sonoma County Paves the Way for Environmental Health
Examining the hidden impacts of factory farming and how a ballot measure in the heart of wine country could put us on a path to a more sustainable and healthier future.
Jul 13, 2024
In a June article in Politico, the author of “Animal rights comes to ‘America’s Provence’ and farmers are worried” dives into the ongoing debate over Measure J on Sonoma County’s November ballot, which seeks to bar the operation and maintenance of concentrated (or confined) animal feeding operations. The piece overlooks the significant damages that CAFOs have historically inflicted upon surrounding communities and animals.
The piece cites CAFO operators’ commitment to sustainable practices and “compliance monitoring,” such as recycling manure by applying it to agricultural land as a natural fertilizer. Such land applications, however, frequently lead to groundwater contamination through runoff. Sonoma County has the most wells per capita of any California county, with around 23,000 properties relying on groundwater from a private well for their water supply. Sonoma County residents deserve access to clean water, uncontaminated by manure.
These facilities also impact air quality and human health. A 2019 University of Wisconsin-Madison study corroborated previous findings stating that the closer children lived to a CAFO, the more likely they were to develop asthma. According to the California Air Resources Board, one in six children living in California’s Central Valley suffer from asthma.
Measure J offers a path to a more sustainable future for Sonoma County. Voting for Measure J this November would allow the county to lead by example—pushing for environmental and public health protections and making a collective effort to protect our environment and public health.
Asthmatic symptoms caused by hazardous contaminants are not the only consequence of CAFO air pollution. CAFOs emit egregious amounts of greenhouse gases that heavily contribute to climate change. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions are 23 and 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide as greenhouse gases, respectively. Animal agriculture is the leading source of U.S. methane emissions, while agricultural soil management is responsible for 75% of U.S. nitrous oxide emissions, primarily because of the use of manure from animal agribusiness.
CAFOs are also associated with the increased spread of diseases—including avian flu—among animals and humans. In the original article, farmer Mike Weber admitted that he had to kill all 550,000 chickens in December due to an outbreak. Several states have recently suffered from avian flu outbreaks, 48 with affected poultry and 12 with affected cattle. The extremely high-density environment of a CAFO facilitates a quicker transfer of the virus, exacerbated by wastewater that is often improperly treated and discharged. These cruel conditions are a perfect storm for a public health disaster, while also causing high levels of stress, discomfort, and illness among the animals housed there.
Although the piece argues that Measure J would impede family farm livelihood, it is actually the opposite. As a matter of fact, small family farmers are often the strongest adversaries of large, industrial-scale CAFOs. For example, family farmers in Iowa are calling for reduced federal subsidies for large CAFOs in favor of increased funding for conservation programs targeted at smaller farms. These are not activists wanting to “eradicate animal farming entirely.” The opposition to CAFOs is a community-led effort to ensure all Californians get a cleaner and healthier food system and environment.
Measure J seeks to prohibit the establishment, operation, expansion, or maintenance of CAFOs in the unincorporated areas of Sonoma County. This prohibition aims to protect the environment, safeguard public health, and address environmental justice concerns. It even provides existing CAFOs with a phase-out period of three years to modify or cease operations.
The measure does not simply cast CAFO owners aside. It includes provisions to ensure that farm workers receive the assistance and training they may need to transition to government-sanctioned agricultural operations. The measure does not require these animal feeding operations to close outright but rather gives them a three-year period to modify their operations so that they no longer qualify as CAFOs. That time period presents the perfect opportunity for owners to lean into sustainable agricultural practices, for which Sonoma County has long been known. Sustainable approaches, such as implementing pasture-based feeding and taking a circular, whole-systems farming approach, are increasingly feasible, economically viable, and almost always more humane.
Measure J offers a path to a more sustainable future for Sonoma County. Voting for Measure J this November would allow the county to lead by example—pushing for environmental and public health protections and making a collective effort to protect our environment and public health. It's time to prioritize human and environmental health over industrial farming practices that harm our communities, animals, and planet.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular