Thinking: March 2008 Archives

A Washington Post article, "Egg Prices Leave Consumers Clucking," is surprising in its candor. The article's central premise is:

"On Easter weekend, even the humble egg can't escape the nation's economic angst. A surge in egg exports, the weak dollar, pricey grain, oil at more than $100 a barrel and cuts in the national chicken flock have contributed to the fortunes of the region's farmers and to supermarket sticker shock."

With unique honesty, a brief description of the industry is provided, which allows the reader to gain some insight into what actually occurs, what processes are involved, and the underlying worldview being espoused. Given the articles candor, each individual reader is able to gain knowledge, reflect on what has been learned, and perhaps ask further questions.

Some examples (quotes from the article) of possible questions seem appropriate.

#1) "...U.S. farmers, feeling pressure from animal welfare advocates at home and in Europe, have been voluntarily cutting the number of birds kept in a typical 24-inch by 20-inch cage."

• Most standard sized pieces of paper, measured lengthways, are around twenty inches end-to-end. Given that knowledge, try to visualize what a "24-inch by 20-inch cage" looks like. How many hens could one conceivably fit into a cage that size? Now, how is it even possible to reduce the number of individual birds whom are forced into a cage smaller in length and width than two pieces of paper?
• How many individual birds were in those cages previously?

#2) "...bills are higher for the fluorescent henhouse lights."

• Why is it necessary to provide an artificial source of light? In those buildings where these animals are kept, is there no access to sunlight - none? (If yes, why is it necessary to light the enclosure at night?)

#3) "The females, beaks clipped so they don't tear one another apart, are fattened up and start work at eighteen weeks." 

• Are the birds naturally inclined to "tear one another apart"? Is this something that occurs in their natural environment, if yes, it seems highly unlikely that the species would have survived its evolution.
• "Fattened up"? Are these birds like athletes who voluntarily prepare for an event, or are they like a car being modified for human use and enjoyment? Is there anything morally problematic about forcefully modifying a living being for the end of more efficaciously exploiting it?
• Why is the phrase "start work at eighteen weeks" employed? If you were forced into an unnatural environment, enclosed in this environment, where you are not allowed to leave nor are you allowed to act autonomously at the most basic level (e.g., consuming food when you feel hungry), would you consider this "work"? The term most often employed in such circumstances is enslavement, not work.  

#4) "(Male chicks are sent to a high-speed grinder or fed to zoo animals; the breed isn't considered meaty enough to raise for drumsticks.)"

• Is it even possible to describe this process in a more callous way?
• Are these infant birds alive when one of these two options are selected for them by human beings; are they actually killed in this way, "a high-speed grinder or fed to zoo animals"? If not, how are they killed?
• The article seems to imply that these two options are the only available options for these infant birds. Does that sound accurate?

#5) "...the chickens are placed in 13,920 cages stacked four high, above a large manure pit cleared twice a year."

• Substitute the hens in this situation for your family dog or cat: [the dog(s) or cat(s)] are placed in 13,920 cages stacked four high, above a large manure pit cleared twice a year. Is there any moral or quantifiable difference between your beloved companion animal and each individual hen, save for the fact that you happen to be acquainted with the companion animal?
• If acquaintance is relevant, if one of these many birds had a human companion, would the exploitation of them at the hands of human beings be immoral?

#6) "The..hens...started their harried lives fifteen months after a shipment of embryos arrived in Canada from a breeding facility outside of...Germany."

• The author uses the word "harried," which means "bothered, anxious, or distressed." This is an explicit admission that these birds are the types of beings whom are capable of feeling such emotion, and having both a mental and physical reaction accordingly. Is it moral to dismiss the interests of a being that can feel, and continue to exploit this individual for economic gain?

#7) "Chains drag a crushed-corn mixture to the birds, and a conveyor system with white rubber gloves eases the eggs away."

• On the assumption that this type of environment is unnatural to a bird (a sound assumption, I believe), try for a moment to imagine what one hour in an environment so contrary to your nature would be like.
• Do you believe that these producers, who have turned each individual animal into a mere renewable resource for human exploitation, considers anything beyond what mechanisms are the most economically efficient?

Words have tremendous power. Many individuals will have perused the Washington Post article without even the slightest emotional response to the processes being described, the disturbing honesty, and the underlying coldness. I just can't understand why or how this is even possible?

After all of the information contained in the article, consider the following quote and ask yourself if you are capable of NOT questioning both the validity of the claim being made and the humanity of the human-animal making the claim:

"Seizing the opportunity, Hibberd says he enjoys working with the birds; they bob and squawk all day like scratchy chorus singers. At night there's no sound, Hibberd says, I always loved that...you walk in after dark, and they're sleeping. They purr."

It's enough to make me cry, if only because Mr. Hibberd attempts to justify the blatant cruelty staring him in the face by appeals to his lighter side - this is blind self-interest baselessly wrapped in a package of "I really care."    

You being a pescatarian is like me wearing a button that says "Registered To Vote!" and then never, ever voting in an election. It doesn't mean anything.