Pigs
This assignment is a work in process and not ready to be assigned. Assignments are moved to the draft namespace after an author has accepted the assignment.
<-- Visible editorial notes appear between <-- and --> tags. You can delete them after you start on a section or you can hide them by using the standard notation for comments, adding an exclamation mark: "." They should be deleted, hidden or not, before the pre-publication review. The author should delete this particular one after reading it. -->
This article provides information about pigs that should prove useful to those advocating for animal rights, as well as to those exploring the rationale for veganism.
It covers various aspects of farmed pigs in the context of animal rights, including injustices and suffering, humane labels and certifications, pig sentience and cognition, the environmental consequences of farming pigs, the health risks of pig meat, and impacts to communities and workers
<-- Use Chickens as a model for this article. Deviations are allowed, of course. The books Slaughterhouse, and Eating Animals can help in running down primary sources, if you have them or can get them. -->
General Information
Lineage
Numbers
<-- when referring to numbers slaughtered, link to this table instead of using a footnote. -->
Injustices and Suffering
The injustices inherent in exploiting pigs and other non-human animals stem from seeing them as 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."[1]
As shown in the section on sentience and cognition, pigs 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 those chicken products with a humane label or certification. To omit a significant number of these injustices would likely increase costs to the point of rendering chicken meat and eggs unaffordable by all but the most affluent.
Loss of Life
We have no nutritional need for pork, so denying pigs their lives is unnecessary, as are the other forms of suffering enumerated here.[2]
Not only are we taking their lives—we are doing so after allowing them to live only about three percent of their natural life spans. Pigs are slaughtered after living only 5 to 6 weeks of a 10 to 12-year natural lifespan. [3]
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).
Slaughter
<-- discuss methods of slaughter, USDA inspecter testimonials, slaughter speed lines, and the cruelty involved. The books Slaughterhouse" and Eating Animals can help if you have them or can get them. —>
Another Injustice / Abuse
Another Injustice / Abuse, etc
Pigs Left to Die after Flooding and Hurricanes
<-- Discuss. I heard pigs have sometimes been left to die so that insurance can be collected. If you can find sources, include that. -->
Humane Labels and Certifications
<-- These should be US-centric, but feel free to include other certifications/labels as well, particularly if they are widely used across multiple countries. -->
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.
In the sections that follow, we show that 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.
Label or Certification 1
Label or Certification 2, etc
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 pigs experience.
<-- discuss -->
Environmental Consequences
The breeding, confinement, and slaughter of pigs have a profoundly negative impact on the environment.
<-- discuss -->
Human Health, Nutrition
But a 2019 study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition says that there is no reason to choose white meat over red meat for the reduction of cardiovascular disease, and it recommends plant-based food for lowering the risk of cardiovascular disease.[4]
All animal protein, chicken or otherwise, 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 Pig Production
<-- Discuss worker issues, pig shit being sprayed in North Carolina, etc. -->
Footnotes
- ↑ Archive:Tom Regan Speech at the Royal Institute of Great Britain in 1989
- ↑ In reply to: We need animal products to be healthy
- ↑ Table: Age of Animals Slaughtered vs. Natural Life Span
- ↑ Bergeron, Nathalie, Sally Chiu, Paul T. Williams, Sarah M King, and Ronald M. Krauss. “Effects of Red Meat, White Meat, and Nonmeat Protein Sources on Atherogenic Lipoprotein Measures in the Context of Low Compared with High Saturated Fat Intake: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 110, no. 1 (July 1, 2019): 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqz035.
Meta
This article was originally authored by xxx with contributions by Greg Fuller . The contents may have been edited since that time by others.
