Churchill: Our pigs, chickens and cows deserve better

Albany

The pigs were on the ballot in California.

This is not a comment on state politicians. The welfare of the pigs was actually on the ballot Tuesday. Chickens too. And veal calves.

Proposal 12, which won more than 60% of the vote, banned the sale of chicken eggs raised in cages and meat grown in cruelly narrow cages. A spokesman for the Humane Society of America called the vote a "blow to abusive containment systems of industrial animal agriculture."

(Insert here an applauding emoji.)

We have come a long way in the way we treat animals that we breed as pets – mostly dogs and cats. They have legal and cultural protections that were once unimaginable. This deserves to be celebrated.

But this success is hardly history. In the deliberately hidden factories, our treatment of animals raised for food is increasingly horribly cruel. Since small family farms have given way to industrial agriculture, animals are more often treated as widgets than as sentient beings capable of fear and suffering.

Americans are not necessarily satisfied with that. We are an animal lover and most of us would be disgusted if we saw the reality of what is happening. But we rarely do it – and so, far from the eyes, away from the heart.

Nevertheless, when given a chance to change the system, we usually catch it, as shown by the support given to the landslide for the California voting measure. Other states have similar laws. The tide turns.

But, as often, New York is behind progress.

The state legislature is regularly invited to consider versions of a bill banning the raising of pigs, veal calves and laying hens in crates preventing an animal from "s & # 's To lie down, to stand and develop completely, and to turn freely. " "It's a depressing standard – imagine the torture of not being allowed to lie down – but the bill does not succeed, session by session."

"The cruelty involved is so massive that the adoption of more humane standards should be the goal of all," said Elinor Molbegott, a lawyer at the Humane Society in New York. "The reluctance to do so seems to be mainly related to greed and money."

There is no division between Democrats and Republicans here. At the last session, the anti-cash legislation was sponsored by Linda Rosenthal, member of the Assembly, Democrat of Manhattan, and by Senator Phil Boyle, Republican of Long Island. Conservatives and Liberals may believe that protecting the weak and powerless, including animals, is an important goal of the government.

But there is a split between north and north.

Lawmakers in the north of the state respond to concerns – and campaign contributions – of powerful agricultural interests that oppose government regulation and appear to fear that small steps to help animals reinforce extremists who will be satisfied with nothing less than veganism for all.

None of these concerns is totally unreasonable. Unthinking regulation is often devastating for agriculture, especially for small farms. At the same time, PETA opposed California's proposal because it did not achieve its true objectives: "Go without eggs, not without a cage," said the rights group. animals.

For the record, I'm a meat eater who sees veganism as a perverse head. I do not believe that killing animals for food is a moral wrong. (A column for another day, maybe.)

But I am also an animal lover who does not want to ignore the morally repellent treatment of animals. If I want a decent life for my dog ​​and my cat at home, should not I blame them for the animals that end up on my plate? Pigs, in particular, are among the most intelligent species in the world emotionally and socially. It makes little sense to ask for protection for dogs and cats while ignoring the misery of pigs.

"I hope we have evolved and are more and more sensitive to the pain and suffering of animals," Molbegott told me. "All we can do to reduce their suffering, we should do it."

If you follow state policy, you know that Tuesday's elections allowed the Democrats to tightly control the Senate. This has raised optimism among proponents of long-standing legislation, including the Child Victims Act and the reform of the vote.

I asked Molbegott if the turnaround, as well as the California vote, would improve the chances of Rosenthal and Boyle's bill on animals.

"I would like to believe that," she says. "But I'm not convinced."

It's more than a shame. It is unreasonable that New York lawmakers have not wanted to do more for farm animals, even as other states are progressing.

While it is true that the moral greatness of a nation can be judged by its treatment of animals – and I believe that is the case – we live in an era particularly contrary to ethics. The vast majority of animals in this country are bred for meat and eggs and have never been treated with more systematic barbarism.

Does not it need to change?

[email protected] • 518-454-5442 • @chris_churchill