Why there is reason for concern (and hope for improvement)

Although current practices in industrialized countries lack the deep-rooted reverence and ritualistic practices of ancestral communities during the acquisition and use of animal source foods, they can still uphold high animal welfare standards. Welfare standards provide a framework for ethical agricultural practices and challenge the assumption that mistreatment is inherent to all forms of animal husbandry. The latter view often arises from emotionally charged images propagated by animal rights activists who tend to neglect positive examples of responsible care. Nonetheless, much improvement is still needed and not all forms of animal production have a social license. This subsection is therefore to be seen as a call to avoid excessive commodification of livestock and to show respect for all participants involved in the production of food, including animals, farmers, butchers, and cooks. A two-fold approach may be needed: the continued improvement of animal welfare standards and practices, coupled with a revitalization of meaningful human-animal interactions. More holistic perspectives are needed that encompass animal welfare, responsible agricultural practices, and a reimagining of what animals could mean in contemporary societies, ultimately leading to more mindful and ethical approaches.

This subsection addresses the following three topics:

• Ancestral versus contemporary models
• Animals should not be seen as mere commodities
• Rethinking human-animal interactions

_________________________________

• Ancestral versus contemporary models

In ancestral communities, animal source foods were obtained and used with reverence and ritual, evident in hunting, herding, and sharing practices. This cultural connection between humans and animals is weaker in industrialized Western societies today. However, this change does not necessarily mean worse animal welfare compared to pre-industrial times. While some practices are criticized for cruelty, others set unprecedented standards. Welfare can even be better in intensive systems than extensive ones, at least in certain aspects. Be that as it may, industrialization tends to diminish the cultural position of livestock in modern thinking, affecting both animals and humanity.

Further reading (summary of the scientific literature): 

The provision of animal source foods (ASFs) in ancestral communities was characterized by reverence and ritual, both during their acquisition (hunt/kill) and use (sharing/consumption) [Leroy & Praet 2015, 2017]. Hunters ask forgiveness for the animal's death and symbolically render to nature what was taken from it, while pastoralists treat their herds respectfully. The kill is a moment loaded with meaning, whether during hunting or during sacrificial rites.

 

Cultural emphasis on such deep-rooted human-animal interactions is much weaker now in the industrialized West. This does, however, not necessarily translate into poor welfare conditions compared to pre-industrial practices. Although some practices are rightfully criticized for being brutal and disrespectful of animal lives, others maintain standards that are historically unprecedented. For some aspects, welfare in intensive systems can even be higher than in extensive systems. In some regions, extensive systems may come with more disease, predation, thermal stress, hunger, etc., despite presenting its own advantages [Temple & Manteca 2020]. Yet, industrialization comes with a price: it does dramatically impoverish the position of livestock in contemporary thoughtscapes and, hence, humanity [Leroy et al. 2020]

• Animals should not be seen as mere commodities

The lack of direct exposure to farming and butchering processes in modern Western societies parallels a moral dilemma. Urban dwellers are uncomfortable with reminders of the animal origins of their food. Meat has been commodified and separated from its source, obscuring the human-animal connection. This trend is most prominent in Anglo-Saxon cultures and with animals perceived as 'cute'. Denial about the origin of meat persists as long as butchering scenes are hidden, causing emotional reactions when revealed. Ideological activists in mass media campaigns accentuate this by exposing the public to intense scenes. While animal welfare standards are widely adopted in the livestock sector, not all producers ensure animal well-being, and certain systems remain problematic. Some vocal vegan activists generalize about animal agriculture based on instances of malpractice, ignoring positive cases at the farm or slaughterhouse level.

Further reading (summary of the scientific literature): 

The absence of raw visual cues to the everyday practicalities of farming and butchering parallels much of the moral crisis in the post-industrial West [Leroy 2019; see also elsewhere]. Urbanites are at unease when confronted with reminders of the animal origins of their food [Leroy & Praet 2017]. Having become a cultural construct in an instrumentalist-reductionist framework, meat is subjected to commodification, homogenization, and hyper-separation, whereby human kinship with animals is obscured [Plumwood 2000; Porcher 2004]. Meat is trimmed, packaged, breaded, and/or hidden in buns as abstract 'protein' [Leroy & Degreef 2015].

 

This trend is particularly (but not only) noticeable in Anglo-Saxon cultures [for a hypothesis, see Leroy et al. 2020] and for animals that are perceived as 'cute' [Petracci et al. 2018]. Within this specific context, a state of 'denial' (described by some as 'carnism' or 'meat paradox') is upheld as long as scenes of butchering are hidden, but triggers emotionally charged responses when they are uncovered [Tian et al. 2016]. Mass media campaigns by ideological activists make this increasingly the case, exposing the unprepared public to the most visceral scenes. 

 

Although standards of animal welfare have been structurally adopted by the livestock sector, sometimes beyond what is legally imposed, not all producers guarantee sufficient animal well-being and some systems indeed remain problematic [Gruen & Jones 2015; Grandin & Cockram 2020]. Vegan militants, however, eagerly use aberrations and malpractice (and the graphical scenes that come with them), to generalize about the entire field of animal agriculture. They remain, however, mostly silent on the exemplary cases at the level of farm and/or slaughterhouse.

• Rethinking human-animal interactions

Prioritizing healthy animals is essential, allowing them to express natural behaviours and live pain-free lives through advancements in technology and behavioural science. However, focusing solely on welfare is insufficient. Western societies may also have to re-evaluate their relationships with animals, aiming for more meaningful connections. This would involve the acknowledgement of a shared ecological embodiment. Such transformation can even leverage animal source foods as catalysts for societal change, evoking a deep connectivity and driving impactful transformations in how people view sourcing concerns. Imaginative shifts, like considering grazing lands as communal dining tables, could aid in this transformation. Recognizing the inherent value of all beings, beyond their role as food, could lead to a shift from being mere eaters of 'meat' (sarcophages) to acknowledging our place as eaters of 'animals' (zoophages). Embracing the complexity of our relationships with animals, the 'virtuous omnivore' acknowledges the tension between ethical considerations and consumption choices.

Further reading (summary of the scientific literature): 

Efforts are needed at two levels: (1) further improvement of welfare prevalence and prevention of malpractice and (2) a revitalization of human-animal interactions, steering away from abstraction, commodification, and disneyfication. Thus, two actions need to be prioritized. First, it is primordial to maintain an emphasis on healthy animals, guaranteeing that they are able to express innate impulses, maintain a well-functioning physiology, and live pain-free lives; advances in technology and animal behavioral science make this increasingly feasible [Grandin & Cockram 2020]. Second, welfare alone may not suffice and Westerners should have the ambition to rethink their everyday relationships with animals (livestock and others), eventually make them more meaningful [Leroy et al. 2020]. Ways forward may include a more equal integration of humans and animals in a chain of reciprocity, a sharing of their common ecological embodiment, and an acknowledgement of humanity's own position as food for others [Plumwood 2000]. This also implies a fresh look at the problematic Western binary categorizations of Death/Life, Nature/Culture, etc [see elsewhere]. 

 

In this process, animals and ASFs can be powerful catalysts of societal and epistemic transformation. Since ASFs are a 'striking vehicle for connectivity', concerns about their sourcing can 'become something to which nearly anyone can respond, and can therefore effect profound change' [Kenefick 2020]. From a pastoralist perspective, for instance, grazing lands could be re-imagined as 'a table where we all – grazing ruminants and humans – eat in communion' [Leroy et al. 2020]. 

 

A future of mindful meat consumption and production is far from speculative' [Kenefick 2020], as disconnected urban populations rediscover the possibility of respectful use and interaction, honesty, and gratitude [Plumwood 2000]. The 'moreness' of all beings can then be recognized and acknowledged, honoring edible life forms as much more than food. The 'sarcophage' (eater of meat) may have to return to being a 'zoophage' (eater of animals) [Vialles 1988]. Instead of the two opposite options of either not eating meat or not worrying about killing animals, the 'virtuous omnivore' should accept the tension between both 'as a sign of the complexity of our relations with animals' [Ursin 2016; Pulina 2020].