With construction of the UW’s Animal Research and Care Facility looming, it’s not surprising the influx of animal rights protesters has started a discussion. The debate often boils down to which should supersede the other: cruelty or biomedical necessity. While many people walk the tight line between the two, expressing both heavy distaste and unfortunate necessity, the treatment of animals outside of research is suspiciously absent in the discussion.
If animal research is necessary cruelty, then I can’t help but wonder what factory farming is. Hint: It’s probably not necessary.
Growing up, I pushed my own discomfort about eating meat to the back of my mind. I often told myself not to think about it as I looked at a plate of chicken. It took me almost 20 years to realize that constantly reminding myself to participate in willful ignorance meant something was amiss. Too often, however, I see a reflection of this in those who squirm at animal research, yet still eat meat.
I won’t claim everyone with a beef about animal research should be a vegetarian. However, if the issue is with the harsh treatment of research animals, your opinion might conflict with what’s for dinner. Factory farming is just as bad, if not worse, than animal research.
The only federal laws mandating the treatment of animals on factory farms concern transportation, which limits animals to 28 hours without food, water, or break, and slaughter. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) conveniently excludes all farm animals, leaving them with almost zero protection.
For animal research, the AWA currently protects a variety of laboratory animals by requiring specific care guidelines and enclosures.
I don’t mean to imply that laboratory animal regulations are infallible, or even that they’re particularly humane. The AWA does not cover mice or rats, which are the most common animal used in research, and the ethical and humane treatment of already protected laboratory animals could still be better. However, some protection is still better than the zero amount of protection farm animals have.
While the AWA is incomplete, research facilities are held to the AWA’s standards by the media. Most recently, a Department of Agriculture report released Feb. 28, 2014, criticized the UW for incorrect animal care. However, a UW spokesperson told The Seattle Times in March 2014, that certain staff will be retrained and offending enclosures will be modified to rectify the mistakes. It’s promising that research institutions are under scrutiny to ensure ethical and humane treatment.
The same can’t be said for factory farms. Major news stories always focus on hoodwinked consumers, rather than animal mistreatment, like McDonald’s “pink slime” in 2012, and the horse meat that was sold as beef in Europe in 2013. It’s fair to want our food to be regulated, but consumer rights are the only thing factory farms currently have to worry about.
While there are voluntary accreditation programs like the American Humane Association to promote humane treatment for farm animals, there are simply too many farm animals to protect. Of the estimated 10 billion land animals that produce food, 9 billion are slaughtered annually. To date, the American Humane Association has certified the ethical treatment of nearly 1 billion farm animals. This still leaves 9 billion others unprotected.
There’s also voluntary accreditation programs for animal research, such as the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC). The AAALAC has more rigorous standards than federal regulations, and protects all animals, including mice. The UW is currently accredited, but not every research facility is as humane. With an estimated 25 million laboratory animals in the United States, the AAALAC has significantly less ground to cover than the American Humane Association.
Animal research is already less than 1 percent of all industry-caused animal suffering. Research facilities are continuing to decrease this percentage by using non-animal alternatives and reducing redundant animal testing whenever possible. Unfortunately, for much biomedical research, animals are still necessary. In those cases, I value new knowledge and medicines over animals.
The move away from meat is mostly nonexistent. Farms don’t result in necessary scientific breakthroughs, but people love to consume meat. There certainly won’t be a movement within the farm industry to sell less of its best product, so I doubt the number of farm animals suffering will go down.
My own vegetarianism has helped me determine just why I adamantly support animal research. It comes down to necessity. Bacon cheeseburgers (which I still desperately crave sometimes) aren’t necessary for my survival, but a future vaccine might be.
It’s great that so many people are concerned about the welfare of research animals, but if the fundamental issue is cruelty, I can’t help but wonder where that concern goes when they eat meat. Maybe they swallow it along with their meal.
Reach contributing writer Emma Bueren at development@dailyuw.com. Twitter: @EmBueren
