Many people applauded our youthful idealism, but told us that we had no hope of ever changing a major industry. They were wrong.
On the first day of 2012, keeping hens in such cages became illegal, not only in the United Kingdom, but in all 27 countries of the European Union. Hens can still be kept in cages, but they must have more space, and the cages must have nest boxes and a scratching post. Last month, members of the British Hen Welfare Trust provided a new home for a hen they named “Liberty.” She was, they said, among the last hens in Britain still living in the type of cages we had opposed.
In the early 1970’s, when the modern animal-liberation movement began, no major organization was campaigning against the battery cage. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the mother of all animal-protection organizations, had lost its early radicalism long before. It focused on isolated cases of abuse, and failed to challenge well-established ways of mistreating animals on farms or in laboratories. It took a concerted effort by the new animal radicals of the 1970’s to stir the RSPCA from its complacency towards the battery cage and other forms of intensive animal rearing.
Eventually, the new animal-rights movement managed to reach the broader public. Consumers responded by buying eggs from free-ranging hens. Some supermarket chains even ceased to carry eggs from battery hens.
In Britain and some European countries, animal welfare became politically salient, and pressure on parliamentary representatives mounted. The European Union established a scientific committee to investigate animal-welfare issues on farms, and the committee recommended banning the battery cage, along with some other forms of close confinement of pigs and calves. A ban on battery cages in the EU was eventually adopted in 1999, but, to ensure that producers would have plenty of time to phase out the equipment in which they had invested, its implementation was delayed until January 1, 2012.
To its credit, the British egg industry accepted the situation, and developed new and less cruel methods of keeping hens. Not all countries are equally ready, however, and it has been estimated that up to 80 million hens may still be in illegal battery cages. But at least 300 million hens who would have lived miserable lives in standard battery cages are now in significantly better conditions, and there is great pressure on the EU bureaucracy to enforce the ban everywhere – not least from egg producers who are already complying with it.
With the ban on battery cages, Europe confirms its place as the world leader in animal welfare, a position also reflected in its restrictions on the use of animals to test cosmetics. But why is Europe so far ahead of other countries in its concern for animals?
In the United States, there are no federal laws about how egg producers house their hens. But, when the issue was put to California voters in 2008, they overwhelmingly supported a proposition requiring that all farm animals have room to stretch their limbs fully and turn around without touching other animals or the sides of their cage. That suggests that the problem may not be with US citizens’ attitudes, but rather that, at the federal level, the US political system allows industries with large campaign chests too much power to thwart the wishes of popular majorities.
In China, which, along with the US, confines the largest number of hens in cages, an animal welfare movement is only just beginning to emerge. For the sake of the welfare of billions of farmed animals, we should wish it rapid growth and success.
The start of this year is a moment to celebrate a major advance in animal welfare, and, therefore, for Europe, a step towards becoming a more civilized and humane society – one that shows its concern for all beings capable of suffering. It is also an occasion for celebrating the effectiveness of democracy, and the power of an ethical idea.
The anthropologist Margaret Mead is reported to have said: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” The last part may not be true, but the first part surely is. The end of the battery cage in Europe is a less dramatic development than the Arab Spring, but, like that popular uprising, it began with a small group of thoughtful and committed people.
Peter Singer is Professor of bioethics at Princeton
University
and Laureate Professor at the University
of Melbourne.
His books include Animal Liberation, Practical Ethics, The Expanding
Circle, and The
Life You Can Save.
Peter Singer: 有道德的歐洲雞蛋
普林斯頓——40年前我和另外幾個學生在英國牛津市一條繁忙的街道上散發傳單，抗議用密集式籠箱養雞的行為。大多數接過傳單的人都不知道自己吃的雞蛋原來來自於那些極為窄小，以致連一隻鳥都無法完全伸展雙翼的籠子——而常規操作中這麼一個籠子要裝下四隻母雞。而那些母雞根本不能隨意走動或是在窩裡生蛋。
許多人都為我們這幫年輕人的理想主義叫好，卻也告訴我們說想要這樣的大型行業發生變革是不可能的。但他們錯了。
從2012年1月1日起，在這種籠子裡飼養母雞就是違法行為，不僅在英國，還包括全部27個歐盟國家。你依然可以把母雞養在籠子裡，但必須提供更多的空間，而且籠子內必須配備雞窩盒以及磨爪柱。上個月，英國母雞福利信托基金的成員向一隻名為“解放”的母雞提供了一個新家。而據他們所說，這隻母雞是英國最后一批還住在密集籠箱裡的母雞之一。
在1970年代早期，當現代動物解放運動發端之時，沒有任何大型組織發起抗議密集籠箱養雞的行為。英國防止虐待動物協會——也是所有動物保護組織的始祖——早已失去了成立之初的銳氣。該協會把焦點放在了某些單獨的虐待個案之上，卻不去質疑那些在已經在農場和實驗室中形成常規的虐待動物行為。最終新一代動物保護分子成功聯合起來，才使英國防止虐待動物協會走出這種自以為是的狀態，投入到反對密集籠箱養雞以及其他集中飼喂動物的運動當中。
最終，新的動物權利運動成功接觸到了更廣大的公眾。作為回應，消費者們開始選擇購買那些來自放養雞的雞蛋，而一些超連鎖級市場甚至停止從密集籠箱養雞廠採購雞蛋。
在英國以及某些歐洲國家，動物福利已經成為了重要的政治議題，民意代表所承受的壓力也不斷增大。歐盟設立了一個科學委員會來對農場中存在的動物福利狀況進行調查，而該委員會則建議禁止密集籠箱養雞以及其他某些形式的監禁式豬/牛飼養方式。最終歐盟在1999年通過了禁止密集籠箱養雞的禁令，但為了讓禽蛋生產商們能有足夠的時間來逐步淘汰這些設備，最后的生效日期被推遲到了今年1月1日。
值得贊揚的是，英國禽蛋行業接受了這個現實並發展出了不那麼殘酷的新型養雞方式。但並不是所有國家都做好了准備，因為估計還有8000萬隻母雞被飼養在密集式籠箱裡。但至少已經有3億隻母雞因此成功擺脫了原本悲慘的處境並顯著改善了生存狀況，同時歐盟的相關機構也承受了強大壓力要求在所有地方執行這一禁令——而不僅僅局限於那些已經接受了這一禁令的禽蛋生產商身上。
禁止密集式養雞的禁令以及禁止使用動物測試化妝品的法規都使歐盟確立了其全球動物福利領導者的地位。但為何歐洲可以在關注動物方面領先全球其他地區如此之多呢？
在美國，沒有任何聯邦法律規定禽蛋生產商應該如何飼養母雞。但當這一事務在2008年擺在加利福尼亞州選民面前時，他們一面倒地支持一個立場：農場飼養的所有動物都應當擁有可以充分伸展四肢羽翼並在轉身時不致碰到其他動物或者籠壁的空間。這意味著並不是美國民眾的態度有問題，而是在聯邦層級上，美國的政治系統給予了那些擁有巨額選舉資金的行業過分巨大的力量，足以將大多數民眾的意願置諸腦后。
在中國這個和美國相當的全球母雞存欄量最大的國家，動物福利運動堪稱小荷剛露尖尖角。為了數百億隻農場動物的利益，我們也希望這些運動能迅速壯大並取得成功。
今年的開端是一個慶祝動物福利事業重大進步的時刻，而對歐洲來說也是向一個更文明也更人性化的社會——對所有能感受痛苦的生物表達關注的社會——所邁出的一步。同時這也是個慶賀民主制度的有效性，以及一個道德理念所產生的力量的時候。
美國人類學家瑪格麗特·米德曾說：“毫無疑問，一小批有思想且意志堅定的公民是能夠改變世界的。事實上，這也是變革發生的唯一方式。”后面那半句或許有爭議，但前面半句則確鑿無疑。密集籠箱在歐洲的終結所帶來的進步或許比不上阿拉伯之春，但正如那場民眾起義一樣，發起這一事件的正是一小批有思想且意志堅定的公民。
Peter
Singer 是普林斯頓大學生物倫理學教授，墨爾本大學榮譽教授。他的著作包括《動物解放》、《實用倫理學》，《食品中的道德》以及《你所能拯救的生命》
