Fish

 https://justiceforanimals.org/?curid=428

Share this page.

Share on social media:

• Share on Facebook…
• Share on Twitter…

Share a link to this page:

• Copy the page link (short URL) to your clipboard.

https://justiceforanimals.org/?curid=428

Share a plain text version of this page or portions of this page:

• Copy the following text to your clipboard:

This assignment will be moved to the draft namespace after an author has accepted the assignment.

This article provides summarized information about fish in the context of animal rights, including injustices and suffering, humane labels and certifications, sentience and cognition, the environmental consequences of fishing and fish farming, the health risks of fish, and impacts to communities and workers. <-- not sure if there is enough info on communities and workers to be useful, so eliminate as fitting -->

It does not specifically cover other sea animals such as whales, dolphins, lobsters, and crabs, although they may be included in aggregate figures or in the context of collateral damage.

<-- Reminder: don't be hyperbolic, but it is not an exaggeration to use graphic, persuasive language that represents reality. -->

<-- Several references say "citation needed." The author will receive credit for the words the citation is provided for. -->

<-- As usual, avoid where possible animal rights sites for these sources—always better to use veterinary, animal ag, government, etc sources. Sites like PCRM, Harvard Public Health, etc are good-->

General Information

Definitions

Fish.

Bycatch.

Another Definition, etc.

Species

<-- Provide information about the classification of fish, the ones most used for food, the ones commonly farmed, etc. -->

Numbers

<-- include any counts for numbers of fish pulled from the oceans, numbers farmed, bycatch, and whatever else would be useful for advocacy -->

Injustices and Suffering

The injustices inherent in exploiting cattle and other non-human animals stem from seeing them as commodities having only instrumental value, lacking any inherent worth apart from their usefulness to humans.

As Tom Regan put it, the animals we use "have a life of their own that is of importance to them, apart from their utility to us. They are not only in the world, they are aware of it and also of what happens to them. And what happens to them matters to them. Each has a life that fares experientially better or worse for the one whose life it is."

As shown in the section on sentience and cognition, cattle not only have a will to live and value their lives, just as humans do, but also have desires, preferences, emotions, families, social communities, natural behaviors, a sense of themselves, and a sense of the future.

The injustices discussed below—all arising from a failure to recognize the inherent worth of other sentient beings—are either standard practice or not unusual. And, as shown in the section below on humane labels and certifications, this is true even for products with a humane label or certification. To omit a significant number of these injustices would likely render the cost of such products unaffordable by all but the most affluent, and we would still have to slaughter them.

Loss of Life

To take the life of any sentient being is to harm that being by depriving them of opportunities for fulfillment, even if it is done suddenly and painlessly (which it is not, as explained below).

We have no nutritional need for beef or for cow milk (or any animal product) so denying cattle their lives is unnecessary, as are the other forms of suffering enumerated here. Not only are we taking their lives—we are doing so after allowing them to live only about ??? percent of their natural life spans. Dairy cows are slaughtered after living ??? of a ???-year natural lifespan, while cattle used for beef are slaughtered after living ??? of a ???-year natural lifespan.

Slaughter

<-- discuss methods of slaughter and cruelties involved. Use USDA inspecter testimonials, slaughter speed lines, etc. —>'

<-- for each of the following cruelties, but only as applicable: to what extent is it performed?; when, what age, is it repeating?); how painful?; pain relief given?; lasting damage? what percentage has this done to them? -->

Method 1, etc.

Mutilations

<-- examples include dehorning, debeaking, castration -->

Mutulation 1, etc

Living Conditions

<-- examples include crowding, feed lots, standing in excrement -->

Living Condition 1, etc.

Denial of Natural Behaviors

<-- examples include pecking, preening, sex, rooting, social behaviors, grooming, nurturing and being nurtured, separation of families -->

Natural Behavior 1, etc

Reproduction and Breeding

<-- examples include artificial insemination, semen collection, breeding for more and larger eggs, breeding for more muscle -->

Reproduction or Breeding Cruelty 1, etc

Handling and Transport

<-- examples include methods for forced movement, beating, prodding, shocking, cruel transport, etc -->

Handling and Transport Cruelty 1, etc.

Disease and Mortality

<-- examples include mastitis, African swine flu -->

Lack of Veterninary Care

High Mortality Rates

<-- may include treatment of downers -->

Disease or Medical Condition 1, etc

Humane Labels and Certifications

Investigations by Consumer Reports and the Open Philanthropy Project (and others) reveal that humane-sounding labels and certifications are largely meaningless, as shown below. In general, these investigations reveal that the standards are weak and unenforced, audits and inspections are rarely done, and if they are done and violations are found, which is infrequent, no one gets fined.

Here we address the most common labels and certifications. Some labels and certifications cover some forms of abuse, and others cover different forms of abuse, but none address all forms of abuse. But even if they did, the standards are often not enforced.

Extra: Suggested script for discussing humane labels and certifications

When discussing humane labels and certifications, in addition to providing some of the details presented in this section, conveying the ideas presented in the following script might be useful:

Many believe that we are not harming animals when we use them for food as long as we treat them well while they are living. The justification given for this view is that animals don't have a sense of the future, and thus don’t have an interest in continuing to live. However, current research in cognitive ethology and neurobiology [as shown below], says otherwise.

But if one holds this belief in spite of the science, and wants to live by their own values, they might, with good intentions, decide to buy only animal products that have some sort of humane label or certification. However, investigations by Consumer Reports, The Open Philanthropy Project, and numerous others reveal that these certifications and labels are largely meaningless.

These investigations show that the standards are weak and unenforced, audits and inspections are rarely done, and if they are done and violations are found, which is infrequent, no one gets fined.

So even if you buy into the idea that it’s OK to eat animal products as long as the animals are treated well, there is virtually no chance that the animals have, in fact, been treated well, regardless of what label is on the package. While certain labels may represent less suffering for some of the abuses, other abuses remain. The mitigation of some of the cruelties does not justify the remaining ones.

Humane labels and certifications are, for the most part, marketing ploys. They are designed to assuage our guilt, and they can engender higher profits because the industry knows that concerned, kindhearted consumers are willing to pay more for products they perceive to be humanely produced.

The life of any farmed animal can only be described as one of commodified, abusive servitude ending in brutal slaughter. When viewed objectively, free from the fog of our cultural norms, their treatment and slaughter, by any standard of fairness and justice—cannot be considered humane.

<-- using a different tactic here from the Pigs article: In general, instead of pointing out specific abuses allowed, just we just discredit the entire label or certification. copied from https://justiceforanimals.org/?curid=88 -->

<-- Oh crap. I just discovered that our Consumer Reports greenerchoices.org links now redirect to a general food labeling site, which is not as comprehensive and doesn't have statements that are as strong. Most don't have accessed dates, I think because they were done before CMOS 17. I checked and I do have access dates stored in the Zotero app, and I will retrofit. This illustrates the need to always have an access date in each citation that links to a web site. -->

<-- FYI, I plan to put the text pertaining to humane labels in templates or a custom namespace and then include them here and in other articles -->

Pasture raised

According to Consumer Reports, “government agencies have no common standard that producers have to meet to make a 'pasture raised' claim on a food label, no definition for ‘pasture,’ and no requirement for the claim to be verified through on-farm inspections.”

Grass fed

The USDA-regulated grass fed label in the United States requires that the bovine is fed grass their entire life. The designation has only to do with feeding and does not prohibit routine cruelties, such as dehorning, castration, confinement, harsh living conditions, rough handling, and lack of veterinary care.

Enforcement is weak, and the animals are still slaughtered at an early age.

Details: Enforcement

Enforcement is weak. The regulation states that "the addition of the grass fed claim for products formulated with grass fed beef is a type of claim that can be approved through a request for blanket approval." This means that an on-site audit is not required. Instead, the producer must submit documentation to FSIS, the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service.

Organic

Some have the perception that organic means humanely raised, but that is not the case. Organic farmers are free to treat their animals no better than non-organic farmers. This is because the USDA, which controls the organic label in the United States, ruled that the label does not allow "broadly prescriptive, stand-alone animal welfare regulations."

Consumer Reports informs us that while there are organic standards relating to animals, they lack clarity and precision, letting producers with poor standards sell poultry and eggs.

Certified humane raised and handled

Consumer Reports says that "we do not rate Certified Humane as a highly meaningful label for animal welfare, because the standards do not have certain requirements that a majority of consumers expect from a 'humanely raised' label, such as access to the outdoors."

Whole Foods' Global Animal Partnership (GAP) certified

The Open Philanthropy Project criticized GAP for having weak enforcement and for providing only slight improvements over standard factory farming conditions. For example, according to Consumer Reports, "standards for slaughter do not exist..."

GAP doesn't even publish standards for dairy cows, arguably the most abused of any of the farmed mammals.

American Humane Certified

According to Consumer Reports, "the requirements fall short in meeting consumer expectations for a 'humane' label in many ways."

Label or Certification Other, etc

<-- Feel free to add other labels and certifications, especially they are widely used in the USA or across multiple other countries. -->

Sentience and Cognition

While we are not suggesting that the degree of moral consideration given to an animal be based on their cognitive capacity, it seems that most people are not fully aware of the rich cognitive, emotional, and psychological lives that cattle experience.

Trait 1, etc.

A Sense of the Future

Environmental Consequences

The breeding, confinement, and slaughter of cattle have a profoundly negative impact on the environment. It accounts for a large percentage of the environmental damage done by animal agriculture

You would think that might have some ramifications for personal action, and it does:

• Researchers from the University of Chicago determined that you reduce your personal contribution to global warming more by changing to a vegan diet than you do by switching to a Prius

• In 2017, over 15,000 scientists from 184 countries issued a "Warning to Humanity," promoting plant-based eating as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

• The Oxford Study was published in 2018 and called the most comprehensive analysis to date of its kind. Joseph Poore, who led the research said "A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth"—"It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car.”

Global Warming

A United Nations study in 2006, Livestock's Long Shadow, said that livestock accounts for 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions, but a study by World Watch Institute three years later said the U.N. report failed to consider some of the factors, and put the figure at 51%.

Even at the lower number, animal agriculture contributes more to global warming than all cars, trucks, trains, buses, airplanes, and ships combined—more than the entire transportation sector, which the EPA pegs at 14% globally.

Land Use

Deforestation

Eutrophication

Species Extension

Other, etc.

Human Health, Nutrition

Food Safety

Food Safety Topic, etc.

<-- each topic could be meat or milk related, or a single topic could relate to both. -->

Deseases and Conditions =

Disease or Condition Risk Topic 1, etc.

<-- each topic could be meat or milk related, or a single topic could relate to both. -->

Animal Protein Risks

All animal protein, including the protein found in beef and cow milk, carries risks that are not associated with plant protein. A review by Dr. Sofia Ochoa cites 42 studies showing that animal protein:

• elevates hormone-insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), which stimulates cell division and growth in both healthy and cancer cells and "has been consistently associated with increased cancer risk, proliferation, and malignancy"

• "results in us having higher circulating levels of trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO)," which "injures the lining of our vessels, creates inflammation, and facilitates the formation of cholesterol plaques in our blood vessels"

• causes the overproduction of the hormone fibroblast growth factor 23 (FGF23), which damages our blood vessels, can "lead to enlargement of the cardiac ventricle, and is associated with heart attacks, sudden death, and heart failure"

• can result in the overabsorption of heme iron, causing the conversion of other oxidants into highly reactive free radicals that "can damage different cell structures like proteins, membranes, and DNA" (heme iron "has also been associated with many kinds of gastrointestinal cancers")

• can result in a higher incidence of bone fractures because of animal protein's high concentrations of sulfur

• contributes to atherosclerosis—plaques of cholesterol that accumulate in the lining of our vessels; this condition is far less common on a vegan diet because absorbable cholesterol is not found in plants

Social Consequences of Cattle Production

Worker Injustice 1, etc

Community Injustice 1, etc

Meta

This article was originally authored by Bethany Chester with contributions by Greg Fuller . The contents may have been edited since that time by others.