Of Hens and Primates

It’s interesting – to me, at least – to compare and contrast two examples of animal rights activism that have been in the news this week. First up is the case of Ben & Jerry’s and their use of eggs purchased from a company that is not entirely on the up and up in their treatment of hens. The original complaint surfaced in Tuesday’s edition of the Burlington Free Press. The Humane Society of the United States claimed that:

…the ice cream maker buys eggs produced by hens cooped in tight cages, a practice that belies Ben & Jerry's reputation as a socially and environmentally conscious company.

…the Humane Society's issue with Ben & Jerry's stems from a campaign against Michael Foods, a Minnesota-based foodservice company that provides eggs and potatoes to grocery stores and companies such as Ben & Jerry's. In a report released late last week on its Web site, Humane Society of United States said it found in an undercover investigation that Michael Foods hens died of dehydration and starvation, and the dead birds were kept in cages with live ones. The hens' cages were too small for the birds to spread their wings, according to the report.

On Wednesday, Michael Foods responded:

In that one-page document, Michael Foods outlined how its practices meet standards set by United Egg Producers, a national alliance of five organizations that provide services to the egg industry. Company procedure meets standards in use of feed, beak trimming, hen handling and transportation, and ammonia standard, Michael Foods said.

"The one area Michael Foods doesn't consistently meet UEP standards is hen cage space," the company said in the statement. Industry standards by 2008 will provide 67 square inches per cage. "Michael Foods has committed to transitioning all our cages to meet or exceed" the UEP standards, the company said.

Yesterday, Ben & Jerry’s made this announcement:

The chief executive officer of Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc. said Wednesday the Vermont-based ice cream company will sever ties with Michael Foods Inc., a Minnesota egg producer accused of mistreating hens.

End of story, right? Well, not exactly, but before we go any further with this, let’s look at the second example, courtesy of the Good Professor:

The constant calls, the people frightening his children, and the demonstrations in front of his home apparently became a little too much.

Dario Ringach, an associate neurobiology professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, decided this month to give up his research on primates because of pressure put on him, his neighborhood, and his family by the UCLA Primate Freedom Project, which seeks to stop research that harms animals.

…colleagues suggested that Ringach, who did not return e-mails seeking comment, was spooked by an attack on a colleague. In June, the Animal Liberation Front took credit for trying to put a Molotov cocktail on the doorstep of Lynn Fairbanks, another UCLA researcher who does experimentation on animals. The explosive was accidentally placed on the doorstep of Fairbanks’s elderly neighbor’s house, and did not detonate.

Now, I will grant you that the two stories are not completely analogous, but in the main they are very similar: two animal rights groups protest against cruelty to animals – the way in which hens are cooped and the killing of primates for scientific research – and both are successful, at least to a degree. The methods they used, however, are light-years apart.

In the case of Ben & Jerry’s, the Humane Society of the United States used a time-honored concept – public pressure – to put the onus on B&J to publicly answer their charge and it’s interesting to note that the two organizations had been in private discussions about the issue for nearly a year. There is a financial component to this issue; the eggs from cage-free hens are more expensive than those collected from caged hens – except, apparently, in the UK – and it’s clear that, despite their rep as a socially responsible company, the ice-cream maker isn’t going to rush into a decision that might make it more expensive to sell their product.

Even today’s announcement doesn’t mean that Ben & Jerry’s won’t possibly buy eggs from caged hens in the future. It just means that, from now on, they’re going to deal only with companies that are completely UEP certified. Still, the Humane Society of the United States has to feel pretty good about the situation. They got, if not what they wanted, at least a large step in the right direction.

On the other hand, it’s pretty obvious that organizations such as the UCLA Primate Freedom Project and the Animal Liberation Front won’t be satisfied until all animal testing is a thing of the past, and they’re willing to go to extreme lengths to achieve their goal.

I have to be honest and admit that the whole idea of animal testing makes me a bit queasy and I don’t think I’m alone in this. Just as I don’t spend a lot of time dwelling on the process behind the nicely wrapped cuts of meat at the supermarket, or, for that matter, the conditions under which the eggs I buy are produced, I don’t think a whole lot about animal testing. This is probably because when I do think about it, I usually end up conflicted.

On the one hand, the thought of animals being experimented on and then killed in the name of science is a dicey one, especially if said science is in the name of a cosmetic company. On the other, the idea that such testing might lead to a cure for AIDS or cancer is definitely a point in the plus column. It also makes a difference as to just what animal is being used as a subject. Blinding bunnies, for example, is definitely a no-no, but slicing up mice gonads is fair game.

I’m also aware of some of the half-truths we tell ourselves in order to rationalize actions that we’re not comfortable with. I’ve worked in the furniture industry for a number of years and I’ve heard over and over, “Animals are not killed for their hides; it’s merely a byproduct of the meat industry” or words to that effect. And it may very well be true. But in my mind it always conjures up an image of someone standing around a slaughterhouse going “Oh, look at all this leather! Let’s make a sofa!”

But it’s clear that outfits like the Animal Liberation Front and the UCLA Primate Freedom Project have no such ambivalence. For them, the ends (no more animal testing) justify the means and the means can get pretty scary. Harassing emails, phone calls, posting names, phone numbers and addresses on their websites, damaging property, intimidating children and even planting bombs are not beyond the pale. To them, there is little or no difference between an animal life and a human life.

And, unlike organizations like the Humane Society of the United States, the individuals involved in these groups maintain their anonymity, refusing to be held accountable for any of their actions. They even go so far as to offer instructions in the art of anonymously harassing their targets:

For your privacy and protection (since it is well known that these scum may call or e-mail you back with threats - or even lie and say that YOU were making threatening phone calls and sending threatening e-mails to THEM), you may want to use a phone booth and send your e-mails from an anonymous computer.

Let's "phone bank" the vivvys and others who make their livings off of torturing and murdering animals in the experimentation and allied-services businesses.

Their attitude is perhaps best summed up by Doctor Jerry Vlasak, a spokesman for the Animal Liberation Press Office and former animal researcher. When queried about the Molotov cocktail, he responded “force is a poor second choice, but if that’s the only thing that will work…there’s certainly moral justification for that”.

So here you have groups that are uncompromising in their ideals, unscrupulous and unapologetic for their methods, unwavering in their moral rectitude and unaccountable for their actions. Do these people sound like anyone else we know?

Okay, anyone who answered “the Bush Administration,” thanks for playing. Your consolation prize is a one-way ticket here. No, the correct answer is…terrorists.