Animal welfare in lower- to middle-income countries, with Peter Singer

Is there a conflict between supporting animal welfare, and supporting the wellbeing of the world's poor? Can we talk about animal welfare in the same way in the global North and South? Or are there important moral distinctions to be made? 

To explore these questions we're joined by Peter Singer, an Australian philosopher and bioethicist, Rebecca Doyle, who leads ILRI’s efforts on animal welfare, and Michel Dione, a senior scientist in Animal Health at ILRI.

Further reading:

Peter Singer:

One of the world’s most controversial philosophers explains himself - Vox

Peter Singer's website

Rebecca Doyle:

ILRI profile

Rebecca Doyle's website

Michel Dione:

ILRI profile

ILRI and animal welfare:

One Health Brief no. 5 - Keeping livestock healthy and well cared for improves animal, human, environment and economic health

This episode was written by Madison Spinelli, ILRI

Transcript

Welcome back to The Boma, a podcast by the International Livestock Research Institute looking at how sustainable livestock is building better lives in the Global South. I'm Annabel Slater, and in today's episode, we're asking if there's a conflict between supporting animal welfare and supporting the wellbeing of the world's poor through livestock farming. And to explore this question, we've engaged Peter Singer.

Peter Singer is an Australian philosopher, a bioethicist, and is widely regarded as one of the most influential intellectuals living today. Singers says that alleviating global poverty is the most significant moral challenge of our time, and this has been the focus of much of his life. It's even led to the creation of a whole movement called effective altruism, a movement that says we need to find the best ways to help others and put these ideas into practice.

But interestingly, and perhaps controversially, Singer is equally known for his views on animal farming. He believes that we should consider the welfare of all sentient beings, including animals, when making moral decisions, and that includes on what we should eat. In fact, Singer's seminal book Animal Liberation, which was published some 50 years ago, is regarded as the intellectual cornerstone of the modern animal rights movement.

So farming animals, eating animals, eating animal sourced foods. These are important for the nutritional and economic well-being of people in lower to middle income countries. But can we even talk about animal welfare in the same way in the global North, compared to the global South? For all the important moral distinctions that we can make. Well, we asked Singer for his opinion on industrial farming systems in high income countries compared to smallholder farming systems in lower income countries.

Peter Singer:

So I think there's a significant difference between that and confining animals, and bringing food to them. and one difference is simply that the animals, able to move around, they're able to perform more behaviors that are more natural to them. in some circumstances, they're in social groups that are natural to them as well. and, you know, a whole lot of things that are done to them, industrial, industrialized farming don't really, occur.

For example, the the chicken industry is based on selective breeding of birds who grow extremely quickly so that the standard American chicken is slaughtered at about six weeks of age. and because it's selected for such fast growth, it can, often happen that the bird puts on too much weight to be supported comfortably by its legs.

And in some cases, they actually the legs collapse under them. The birds are unable to move. and because you're talking about 100,000 birds in a shed and just one person who doesn't want to spend too much time in the ammonia  anyway, they quite likely to, starve or die of dehydration before anyone, you know, puts them out of their misery.

And then there's a whole range of other conditions that are caused with, because they breed for such fast growth. So, you know, that isn't going to happen with free range, birds, they're going to have to be strong enough to walk around and now they'll grow a little more slowly, but they'll have better lives. You know, I'm not an absolutist about saying we must never use animals for, ends or anything like that.

I am concerned about the suffering that we inflict on them, and that suffering seems to me to be completely unjustified. 

Annabel:

So Singer believes that industrialized farming systems can cause a lot of suffering for the animals involved. But what about smallholder farmers in lower to middle income countries? And in case you need a reminder what smallholder systems are.

There are small farms, farms that could be anywhere from one hectare to ten hectares in size. In fact, five out of every six farms in the world is less than two hectares in size, and smallholder farms produce up to 80% of food. In Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. In Africa alone, there's an estimated 33 million smallholder farms. 

Peter Singer:

The needs of the people must play a role and you know, when I first started thinking about this issue, obviously, you think about people who can't nourish themselves and their families adequately without animal products or pastoral people.

And I don't think I have the right to tell, other smallholders who would not be able to get the variety of foods that they and their family might need to be adequately nourished, that they can't, have a few chickens running around the village and collect their eggs, or maybe, occasionally kill one of the chickens and eat them.

I do think you can defend people who really have a significant nutritional or cultural need to, have, to farm animals, and who are treating the animals in a way that is reasonably natural, to which the animals are suited, and where you can say that they're having, a high level of welfare. 

Annabel:

Smallholder systems can have a higher level of animal welfare because they allow animals to have more opportunity and more space to perform natural behaviors.

So free range chickens, for instance, can walk around, can just bathe, can forage. But these behaviors may not be seen as necessities and may not be permitted in industrialized farming systems, which aim to grow and process huge numbers of animals using minimal resources. Smallholder farms also differ in the way that farmers can relate to their animals. We talked to Rebecca Doyle, who's a scientist at the University of Edinburgh and at Ilari, who leads ILRI's efforts on animal welfare, about her research.

She's had conversations with smallholder farmers in Ethiopia about exactly these issues. 

Rebecca Doyle:

It's really interesting when we speak with animal owners in a, you know, a village setting or a smallholder setting, they really do describe their animals as being reliant on them, but just as much as them being reliant on their animals. So it is kind of they really describe it as a two way situation.

And that's I think speaks to what Peter said as well about it at this sort of integration and need for each other. They know that they need to be providing good care for their animals and and in return, their animals would be providing for them for food security and income sources. 

Annabel:

Doyle also sees that animals are much more of a part of family households.

Rebecca Doyle:

Owners can see the animal's natural behaviors, and there's no disconnect between the animals and the animal source product, the meat. The milk. As is often the trend in cities and urban areas around the world. One thing that's also really interesting when we have, you know, community conversations about animal welfare is that without prompting, people give often like a multidimensional description of animal welfare.

So animal health is the most important thing that they bring up. First of assume that makes sense because the same for us. If we don't have good health, then we don't have good welfare. The same applies to animals. But then animal owners will also go forwards and keep describing that they need, you know, behavioral opportunities, that their animals are happy when they have these resources that are important to them, that they, you know, want to keep them in shelter so they are safe and protected from the elements and, and have these opportunities for natural behaviors.

Now, some people believe that animal welfare is a luxury, something that only high income countries can really afford. But it's a practice that could and should be integrated into all livestock systems, regardless of the size and context. And that's because there are many practical benefits for farmers, in short, supporting animal welfare. In short, supporting animal welfare is not only good for animals, but it's also good for supporting humans.

You can link animal welfare to several of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, including zero hunger, good health and well-being, clean water, biodiversity loss, even climate change. We found ways that animal welfare is important to improve animal, human and environmental health, and it increases the productivity of livestock and the safety of animal sourced foods. 

Annabel:

Here's Michel Dione, a senior scientist in the animal health program.

He talks us through the benefits he's seen in his research. 

Michel Dione:

Yes. as I said, improvement of welfare will directly lead to improvement of, productivity because, when you, feed, well, your animals, you put them in good shape. you give them clean water, they will not get sick quickly. you will reduce the pressure of pathogens to the farm.

Then you reduce the risk of your animals being sick, and then consequently, you reduce the mortality and mortality rate. Then you increase your number of animals in your hand, and then you sell more animals, more healthy animals. You improve public health because the animals are not sick. well maintained. That is number one. And number two, if you take the example of transportation, when your animals are less stressed during transport, transport in good conditions, then, bacteria will shift in their gut, in their stomach, will not be shed.

The amount that is alarming, that can really make, issues when you consume the meat after slaughtering. 

Annabel:

The example that Dione is referring to is that when chickens are transported to slaughter, if they have a stressful journey, they'll shed increased amounts of Campylobacter bacteria. This bacteria is the cause of diarrheal disease in humans. So if we reduce the stress of chickens, we reduce the amount of bacteria shed, reduce the likelihood of diarrheal disease, and have a positive impact on human health.

So improved animal welfare also improves human health. And this could be seen as an imperative to treat animals better. But to return to Singer, does he think that we should make a moral distinction between those who have a cultural or nutritional entitlement to eating animal sourced foods, and those that could or should choose to eat a plant based diet?

Peter Singer:

Well, if you can walk into a supermarket and buy plant based foods that will replace the, animal foods in your diet, and especially if those animal foods are coming from, factory farms or let's say, you don't know that they're not coming from factory farms because I think it's your responsibility to find out. Then, I don't think you should be eating the animal products, but, if you don't have that opportunity to purchase nutritionally adequate food without the animal products, and if you also know that, well, either you're raising them yourself or you are buying them from people in your community who you know, are not, don't have factory farms, but are, allowing them to arrange freely then, I think that's something that I would not criticize. I do think, a legislative, minimum is essential because otherwise, in a free market economy, any practice that gets an advantage by, treating animals in a worse way, and I mentioned some examples of that earlier on, is going to succeed in the marketplace.

Unless you have a really educated consumers who say, no, I'm only going to buy from farms with high standards 

Annabel:

And to return to Doyle. 

Rebecca Doyle:

So I guess to start with, I think there's like a, a carrot and a stick approach that sort of apply. And then I think the kind of stick approach is sort of a legislative approach, right, where you can have, regulation in place about the what are the minimum standards for which we need to be caring for animals.

And I think there's a lot of work that can be done at a policy level to improve that, internationally. And the carrot for me is the, the points that we were describing before about how, you know, sentient animals have the ability to experience pain and experience complex feelings. And that's why it's our responsibility to care for them.

And I think that a lot of animal owners or people that, you know, care for animals could really identify with that. Not everyone, but, a lot of people can. And so that approach, I think, is more of a grassroots one to to changing animal welfare or having concern for animal welfare. and I think that's also one that relates to the public as well. 

Annabel:

So legislation for animal welfare will raise the bar of standards for animal care.

And change is happening. One example from the Global South is that is the development of an animal welfare strategy for Africa by the African Union. Similarly, this does seem to be happening in a lot of countries worldwide. 

There's a changing appetite for welfare legislation and an awareness that comes with it.

Rebecca Doyle:

As we see people's consumption of animal products increasing, it often does go hand in hand with awareness that, where those products are coming from and whether that's a food safety perspective and making sure that, you know, so there's animal welfare benefits that can come from that or co-benefits. But then through to actually the treatment of animals is something that does does come on the right, more often.

And so I think it's really important to be trying to not correct for problems what they've come up, but be proactive in preventing them, which is, I think, the why it's so important to be having discussions about animal welfare in a low and middle income country, contexts. 

Annabel:

It's important that these conversations are happening in the global South. As the population rapidly increases and the demand for animals source food does as well.

Let's take Nairobi as an example. Although in Nairobi, most animal source foods still come from smallholder farms and pastoralists, there's an increasing number of factory farms and industrialized settings. If we don't involve animal welfare and regulation in the face of more demand, this could be catastrophic for the well-being of the animals involved and detrimental as well to human well-being and livelihoods.

Peter Singer:

Population is forecast to grow faster in sub-Saharan Africa and other parts of the world. So presumably, the demand for animals, will animal products will increase. at least, among those who can afford it. And, that makes this, a really important area to be working. 

Annabel:

And that brings us to the end of this episode.

Thanks for joining me on the Boma. If you enjoyed today's show, please leave a review and get in touch with us on social media. We'd love to hear what you think. See you next time on the Boma.