Why is RSPCA Australia not a vegan organisation?

The Australian RSPCA puts its name and logo on eggs and some meats encouraging the public to buy them because the animals used or killed to produce the foods were raised to minimal standards of animal welfare.

When questioned as to why a society which claims to try to prevent cruelty to animals profits from their exploitation and slaughter and does not encourage people to give up meat and other animal foods they refer to this Knowledgebase entry:

“Why is the RSPCA not a vegetarian organisation?”

Just as the RSPCA respects the choices of people who don’t consume meat or other animal products, we also respect those individuals who do choose to do so. The RSPCA is not a vegetarian or vegan organisation. We acknowledge that one way of reducing the suffering of animals in livestock production systems is by not purchasing products that are sourced from farm animals. Indeed, when some people become aware of the realities of large-scale animal farming, they choose to become vegetarian or vegan. We respect this choice. However, in the mean time, there are many more people who choose to ignore the suffering of farm animals or who choose to source products from animals farmed in a more humane manner. So, while ever the farming of animals for food and fibre continues, the RSPCA seeks to ensure that the conditions under which those animals live meet their physical and behavioural needs. The RSPCA believes we can help improve how farm animals are treated by getting involved in the process and constantly pushing for higher production standards along the supply chain. We do this at government, industry and producer level.

The RSPCA encourages people who do consume meat, eggs, milk and other animal products to make a higher welfare choice, and to help them do this the RSPCA aims to ensure that higher welfare alternatives are readily available on the supermarket shelf. (http://kb.rspca.org.au/Why-is-the-RSPCA-not-a-vegetarian-organisation_435.html)

Another item in their knowledgebase addressing jumps racing – “What is the RSPCA position on horse jumping races?” (http://kb.rspca.org.au/What-is-the-RSPCA-position-on-horse-jumping-races_234.html) quite clearly and unequivocally states that RSPCA Australia is opposed to jumps races.

But what happens if we re-write their stance on jumps racing using precisely the same logic, arguments and words they put forward in their explanation of why they are not a vegetarian organisation?

It comes out like this:

 

Why is the RSPCA not opposed to jumps racing?

Just as the RSPCA respects the choices of people who don’t support jumps races or other animal contests, we also respect those individuals who do choose to do so. The RSPCA is not opposed to jumps racing. We acknowledge that one way of reducing the suffering of animals in the racing industry is by not supporting jumps races. Indeed, when some people become aware of the realities of jumps racing, they choose to reject it. We respect this choice. However, in the mean time, there are many more people who choose to ignore the suffering of horses or who choose to support horses raced in a more humane manner. So, while ever the racing of horses over jumps continues, the RSPCA seeks to ensure that the conditions under which those animals live meet their physical and behavioural needs. The RSPCA believes we can help improve how horses are treated by getting involved in the process and constantly pushing for higher racing standards. We do this at government, industry and trainer level.

 

The RSPCA encourages people who do support jumps racing to make a higher welfare choice, and to help them do this the RSPCA aims to ensure that higher welfare alternatives are readily available at all RSPCA Race Courses.

 

I think that shows the weakness and inconsistency of their arguments on vegetarianism. They simply choose to be firm on jumps races but weak on vegetarianism without any underlying, solid reasoning.

RSPCA Australia needs to be honest with the public and promote a strict vegetarian (vegan) diet as a start point for anyone who purports to be against animal cruelty.

Then, of course, they’d risk 90% of their members’ fees and donations and all the profits from their ‘happy eggs’ and ‘happy meat’.

I wonder if they’ll change.

An open letter to RSPCA ACT CEO, Michael Linke

Michael, I have seen your recent messages to one of the Animal Liberation ACT members following some posts (since deleted) on the RSPCA ACT Facebook page. I am not writing on behalf of AL-ACT as I am not an office bearer – just an ordinary member. But as such I took offence at your words and wanted to pass on my thoughts to you – and your members.

The origin of the discussion was an announcement by RSPCA of upcoming events. This brought about a number of posts suggesting that the RSPCA should serve only vegan food at such events as the production of unnecessary animal based foods causes massive suffering and the deaths of millions of farmed animals. It was put that by so doing, the RSPCA would be taking a very clear stance against the treatment of farmed animals – removing some of the inconsistency in its current position.


In response, you stated that “we do not promote a vegetarian lifestyle”. We know that – but we fail to see why. Your UK RSPCA colleagues provide links to the Vegetarian Society, have recently encouraged people to “look out for a tasty vegetarian alternative, such as a nut roast” for Christmas dinner and have educational materials that encourage teachers and students to look at the issue.

The RSPCA ACT website does not even mention the word ‘vegetarian’ yet reducing the amount of animal products one consumes is the single most effective way to reduce animal suffering.

You also labelled us ‘extremists’ and accused us of “bemoaning” and criticising rather than taking real action. I find that extremely offensive and arrogant given that you are a paid, full-time CEO of a multi-million dollar organisation. To criticise the amount of work done by volunteers in a small community group is a bit rich – and is also completely unjustified. AL-ACT is extremely active and has achieved much on a very limited budget. They have been instrumental in having animal circuses and rodeos banned and despite your apparent attempt to claim personal credit for the ban on fireworks and the new egg-labelling laws, AL-ACT has been extremely active and effective in both those campaigns for years.

Further to the battery caged eggs issue, I attended your launch of the Choose Wisely campaign at the parliament house breakfast and, as I said to you afterwards, I was very disappointed that you could not even mention the work done by Animal Liberation in the speeches and video presentation purporting to portray the history of the anti-cage campaigns in the ACT. You made no mention at all of the work done over the last 14 years by AL – including its work with the Greens on drafting Bills and the effective campaigning carried out by Free Range Canberra (an AL-ACT campaign).

The RSPCA often demonstrates a blind spot for farmed animals continuing with a recent item in the Canberra Times regarding the hot weather where you appealed for people to take care of domestic animals and expressed concern for wildlife yet failed to mention the thousands of sheep and cattle often left in paddocks with no shade on the hottest of days. Nor did you mention your commercial partners, Pace Farm and how the hens in their stinking hot sheds at Parkwood would have suffered over these hot periods.

We know you are not an animal rights group but you don’t need to be to mention on your site and in your literature that no modern animal ‘farming’ is humane.

I understand the difference between animal rights and animal welfare. I can see that taking a position (veganism/animal rights) at the end of the spectrum causes difficulties in pulling the average Aussie that long distance from his current meat-eating way of life. I can also see your point in aiming for prodding Mr Average via small steps and staying “in the tent” – but while you are there you need to start acknowledging that there is a lot of space and a growing crowd outside it.

RSPCA is far too inclined to stay in its comfort zone. It’s time you all got a bit bolder and acknowledged veganism as the most effective way for individuals to reduce animal suffering. And refusing to serve dead animals at your functions should be your first step.

Mike O'Shaughnessy

Cage Free = Cruelty Free?

As mentioned in an earlier post, a few weeks ago I had the privilege of attending the launch of the Choose Wisely campaign breakfast at Parliament House. After seeing a video on the fight to have battery cages banned, particularly in the ACT, we were invited to enjoy our breakfast which included, naturally, free-range eggs which, we were assured, were ‘cruelty-free’.

Now I am the first to urge consumers to buy free-range eggs in place of cage eggs. I have previously been involved with the Free Range Canberra campaign run by Animal Liberation ACT. Even so, there is no way that I could ever describe either barn-laid or free-range eggs as ‘cruelty-free’.

Let’s put aside for the sake of this argument the sad fact that many eggs sold as free-range are simply not. To my way of thinking, if eggs are labelled ‘cage’ you can be sure that the hens who laid them have lived in hell whereas eggs labelled ‘free-range’ mean that there is at least a good chance that the hens had some freedom during their short life.

But let’s go back to the start of the process. Whether layer hens are to spend their lives in cages, barns or with access to grass outdoors they all come from the same hatcheries. The fertilised eggs that are used by these hatcheries are laid by breeder hens who spend their shortened lives in sheds similar to broiler sheds. The hens lead stressful lives with an unnaturally high mating rate. In a more natural flock, the proportion of roosters to hens is much lower than the proportions maintained by these commercial breeders. Frequent matings result in severe feather wear and injury for the hens. Also, it is not uncommon for breeders to kill all the roosters after several weeks and replace them with young roosters to accelerate the rate of fertilisation. For an insight into layer breeder sheds see http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=RbmTHILGL1M

‘Worn-out’ breeders go to be slaughtered for second quality foods.

On hatching, about half the chicks are male. These males are of no value so are killed – either by being tossed into a bin to be gassed or by being thrown into the spinning blades of a macerator.

No matter what type of production system they are destined for (cage, barn or free-range), chicks may be subjected to painful beak trimming with a hot blade.

Finally, again regardless of the system used, hens in commercial layer flocks are culled after about 15 to 18 months – their peak laying period. They are transported, often for many hours in open trucks, to be slaughtered for second grade human and pet food – or maybe just fertiliser.

Avoiding cage eggs is a good start but regardless of the egg production system used, there is no such thing as a cruelty-free commercial egg.

Animal Liberation and the RSPCA

The President of Animal Liberation ACT (AL ACT), Mary Hayes, and I were invited to this morning’s Parliament House breakfast launch of Choose Wisely – the new RSPCA initiative designed to reduce the number of cage eggs consumed in Australia. I got a guernsey due to my previous involvement with AL ACT and its Free Range Canberra (FRC) campaign.

The morning started badly – no soy milk for this vegan’s coffee (“we do have skim milk, Sir”). Then it got worse; in announcing the launch of Choose Wisely, RSPCA ACT CEO, Michael Linke, acknowledged the past work of others in seeking to have cages banned in the ACT including the Greens MLA Dr Deb Foskey but, sadly, neglected to acknowledge the ongoing work of AL ACT. He made no mention of AL ACT’s role in the 1997 attempt to legislate against the cages and its more recent “Free Range Canberra” campaign which led to the introduction of last year’s revised Bill by the Greens. Ah well.

“Choose Wisely” is a term that has been used for some time by the RSPCA but now has a new logo and its own website http://www.choosewisely.org.au/. It is intended to persuade organisations to move toward the use of cage-free eggs. Those that do will earn the right to display Gold, Silver or Bronze logos depending on their degree of progress in eliminating cage eggs from their businesses. InterContinental Hotels Group (IHG) was announced as the first ACT business to commit to the move toward cage-free eggs as part of the RSPCA campaign.

The campaign will also encourage consumers to support such businesses and to use RSPCA supplied calling cards at other eateries – leaving them on the table to encourage the café to change its buying habits.

The IHG move will mean some 200,000 eggs per year in the ACT will be RSPCA–accredited cage-free eggs instead of sourced from caged birds. But will that make a difference? The Pace Farm facility in the ACT produces some 60 million eggs per year so even if IHG have been using all ACT eggs up til now the change will only affect about 0.33% of the ACT facility’s output.

This move is more symbolic than practical so it will really only make a difference if it leads other businesses and individuals to change their buying habits. Let’s hope that RSPCA and IHG can get some media coverage.

The Animal Liberation movement and the RSPCA have had their differences – and they continue to do so. According to http://www.rspcawatchdog.org/ (the Animal Lib point of view), “Despite the hard work of volunteers, RSPCA management consistently fails animals.” The RSPCA South Australia site (http://blog1.rspcasa.asn.au/2007/01/12/animal-liberation-front/) gives the other perspective. It says “we fundamentally differ from the animal liberation movement in the methods we use”.

But the differences are not restricted to methodology – the RSPCA also differs from the AL movement in what it regards as cruel. At breakfast this morning after seeing a DVD showing the horrors of battery cages we were invited to enjoy our hot breakfast which included cage-free eggs, bacon and chicken sausages – proclaimed joyously as all ‘cruelty-free’. This is where we differ. The RSPCA believes that it’s ok for humans to use animals – to breed them, incarcerate them, separate mothers from their babies, perform surgical procedures on them, transport them and, of course, slaughter them – as long as it’s all done ‘humanely’.

Does this mean that Animal Liberation and the RSPCA can’t work together? I don’t think so. As an Animal Liberationist I see the RSPCA as on the right track – but just a bit further back. Still, by being more conservative than Liberationists they are more likely to gain support from the general public as well as from politicians and businesses.

The local RSPCA ACT folk have been supportive on the battery cage issue – even if a little ignorant of AL ACT’s efforts and achievements – and I think this initiative deserves AL’s support. They are a far bigger organisation with a lot more money to spend than most Australian AL groups. Besides, once they achieve this goal of finishing off battery cages they will most likely have come to see the cruelty inherent in the barn system and refocus on it.

By the way, had the RSPCA been more aware of AL’s Free Range Canberra campaign they’d have seen that FRC recruited businesses long ago to commit to free range eggs (http://www.freerangecanberra.org/restcafe.htm).

They would also have been familiar with this calling card.

On a final note, after breakfast we were treated to a speech supporting the new campaign by Senator Gary Humphries who has apparently changed his spots somewhat since his days in the ACT Legislative Assembly where in 1997 he opposed the Greens’ Bill to ban battery cages on the basis of the possible loss of the Parkwood facility and its jobs from the ACT as well as “the weaknesses that the alternative schemes of egg production being suggested by the Greens might have in terms of animal welfare”. Good to see you catching up, Senator.