1/2A very good question Michael. I am conflicted to be honest. When Anna & Peter - my grandparents so obvious bias there! - founded CiWF in the late sixties their views were progressive for era, they were called 'cranks' & their views, promoted via their campaigns, was of eating less or no meat/animal products & IF you chose to eat animals to chose 'better/higher welfare' meat/produce. They themselves were vegetarian, not fully vegan, but they ate v little animal produce. Overall at this time/those early decades I think their work & the work of those they worked with reduced animal suffering in tangible & measurable ways. I wonder if there is any evidence that those thinking of going vegan didn't because of the promo of higher welfare meat etc.? I'd be interested to know. Now we are in 2025 I think the message is outdated....more to follow.. .
2/2 - BTW I have a whole chapter in the book on the word 'compassion' itself - its religious application etc. & why it was the choice at the time for their campaign. As a 20 year vegan myself I don't think eating animals or their produce can be compassionate - there is always cruelty & violence involved. I wonder if Nan & Peter, as I knew them, were alive today how their message would have evolved. As the length of my message no doubt shows my feelings are complicated! Something I'm sure of, like @kimstallwood who I think recommended my Subtsack to you is that it's only ever positive to know the history of the animal movement, where we came from so to speak, in order to go forward to something even, hopefully, better.
I agree with you that animal agriculture is fundamentally unjust.
Unfortunately, that's not the message that CiWF is putting out there. Do they ever ask, never mind answer, any of the fundamental questions about our use of other animals, and the way we view them?
What is it that keeps compassionate people participating in systems of extreme violence? Isn't it the belief that we can harm nonhumans in a humane way?
If animal agriculture can't be compassionate, doesn't that mean humane discourse, and its various labels, are deceiving people?
I imagine CiWF have the numbers on the sale of humane-labeled products. They must know what their endorsement is worth.
Please don't get me wrong. I don't doubt that your grandparents were kind and well-meaning people. But it's very hard for me to belief that CiWF, as speciesist as they are today, is acting in good faith.
That's the thing Peter, my grandfather, signed ‘A Declaration Against Specieism’ at the Cambridge Animal Rights Symposium back in 1977 along with Richard Ryder, Andrew Linzey & others. My point is that my grandparent's were way beyond ‘kind and well-meaning’, they were impactful and radical- for their era - but CiWF, as it stands, today has not necessarily kept up with the times. It's become institutionalised and less willing to speak out. It is out dated in my view. I'm not towing the party line which is in part probably why they don't promote 'Roaming Wild' very much even though it is about their founders!! But our views - yours and mine- are not dissimilar, with perhaps the exception that the original campaign was vital and powerful at the time and for many years - during the sixties and seventies, perhaps into eighties. (CiWF does criticise very actively to be fair a lot of the meaningless ‘high welfare’ labels - Red Tractor and the like but I get your point.) Let's keep fighting the power!
I didn't mean to downplay your grandparents' achievements, but rather to compare them to CiWF as it is today. I apologize if it came across wrong.
I won't deny that CiWF has made a difference for animals trapped in the system, but is getting individuals out of cages better, or just a different kind of bad?
Welfare doesn't just alleviate people's conscience. Parts of the industry see welfare as a means to increase their profits. And so the violence continues.
In the article you've kindly referred me to - which does a great job of highlighting the hypocrisy inherent in speciesism - you attached greater concern to factory farmed animals.
I can understand why, but I do believe that when welfare organizations speak out against factory farming - and they seem to speak out against little else - they are telling people that there's nothing wrong with oppressing and killing other animals per se. Doesn't this do more harm than good?
The question is, of course, how do you end factory farming so long as speciesism is an acceptable way of thinking? It seems to me a fool's errand, but it does keep the cash flowing.
Have you read the article by James LaVeck called "Invasion of the Movement Snatchers". It's about the blurring of the line between animal advocacy (welfare in particular) and animal agriculture.
Although it was written in 2006, it seems to be more relevant than ever. I've recently found out that welfare organizations are buying shares of companies like JBS. So now they're not just profiting indirectly. They're literally a part of the meat economy.
Where do they get the money? Mostly through effective altruism, it seems; another harmful movement.
Even if we believe the end justifies the means - which I don't think we should - their end isn't to put a stop to the violence, but to codify and regulate the abuses ad infinitum.
'....is getting individuals out of cages better, or just a different kind of bad?'
Yes, I think so 'a different kind of bad' or maybe a relative level of badness I'd say, slightly lower down the suffering spectrum but then that's hard to measure.
'...Parts of the industry see welfare as a means to increase their profit'
I agree, lots of profiteering from the ancillary industries, as well as unethical vets who prop up the system as careerists. (Of course that's not all vets - many speak out against factory farming-Emma Milne who blurbed 'RW' as an example.)
'....they are telling people that there's nothing wrong with oppressing and killing other animals per se. Doesn't this do more harm than good?'
Do you mean the kind of individuals who might avoid/be against factory farmed food but agree with hunting wild animals? Joe Rogan types? Overall, I'm not sure about the harm/good ratio. I mean I think there is still much more focus in the mainstream on single issue animal concerns - which I support too - my mum has raised thousands for 'Save the Rhino' for example - but that people generally find it easier to support say saving a rhino or adopting an orangutan even while they eat bacon. But I may have misunderstood your question.
.'..how do you end factory farming so long as speciesism is an acceptable way of thinking?'
I agree, we should be at the point philosophically and ethically where the eradication of this 'ism' is connected (as it so directly often is) to the eradication of all the other 'isms'. (Example: migrant workers & poorer individuals often being the ones who suffer most because of the animal industry - spray from farms onto homes, poor workers exploited in abattoirs/ on farms for lack of other options, 'food deserts' etc.)
"....Have you read the article by James LaVeck called "Invasion of the Movement Snatchers"?'
No, but I will definitely check it out. (I didn't know this about JBS.)
'....to codify and regulate the abuses ad infinitum.'
Yes, Peter and Anna's first/early campaign was called Project '70 (started in 1967)- and the aim was that factory farming would be over by 1970 & CiWF would have, to quote Peter, 'put itself out of business' - this now seems perhaps naive but my feeling is the next stage would have been towards a world without speciesism. As factory farming is now bigger than ever (population growth in part, amongst other factors), it's time to just go direct to the next stage in my view - that is attempting to stop factory farming isn't good enough. (Small point: I don't think the entire world can be vegan - as examples, on the plateaus of Tibet it's very hard to grow much in the way of plant food or for inuits a vegan diet does not seem possible - but beyond these small populations I think that is the way.)
Hi. I'm wondering, how do you feel about CIWF encouraging people to eat animal products in the name of compassion?
1/2A very good question Michael. I am conflicted to be honest. When Anna & Peter - my grandparents so obvious bias there! - founded CiWF in the late sixties their views were progressive for era, they were called 'cranks' & their views, promoted via their campaigns, was of eating less or no meat/animal products & IF you chose to eat animals to chose 'better/higher welfare' meat/produce. They themselves were vegetarian, not fully vegan, but they ate v little animal produce. Overall at this time/those early decades I think their work & the work of those they worked with reduced animal suffering in tangible & measurable ways. I wonder if there is any evidence that those thinking of going vegan didn't because of the promo of higher welfare meat etc.? I'd be interested to know. Now we are in 2025 I think the message is outdated....more to follow.. .
2/2 - BTW I have a whole chapter in the book on the word 'compassion' itself - its religious application etc. & why it was the choice at the time for their campaign. As a 20 year vegan myself I don't think eating animals or their produce can be compassionate - there is always cruelty & violence involved. I wonder if Nan & Peter, as I knew them, were alive today how their message would have evolved. As the length of my message no doubt shows my feelings are complicated! Something I'm sure of, like @kimstallwood who I think recommended my Subtsack to you is that it's only ever positive to know the history of the animal movement, where we came from so to speak, in order to go forward to something even, hopefully, better.
Thank you for taking the time to write a reply.
I agree with you that animal agriculture is fundamentally unjust.
Unfortunately, that's not the message that CiWF is putting out there. Do they ever ask, never mind answer, any of the fundamental questions about our use of other animals, and the way we view them?
What is it that keeps compassionate people participating in systems of extreme violence? Isn't it the belief that we can harm nonhumans in a humane way?
If animal agriculture can't be compassionate, doesn't that mean humane discourse, and its various labels, are deceiving people?
I imagine CiWF have the numbers on the sale of humane-labeled products. They must know what their endorsement is worth.
Please don't get me wrong. I don't doubt that your grandparents were kind and well-meaning people. But it's very hard for me to belief that CiWF, as speciesist as they are today, is acting in good faith.
That's the thing Peter, my grandfather, signed ‘A Declaration Against Specieism’ at the Cambridge Animal Rights Symposium back in 1977 along with Richard Ryder, Andrew Linzey & others. My point is that my grandparent's were way beyond ‘kind and well-meaning’, they were impactful and radical- for their era - but CiWF, as it stands, today has not necessarily kept up with the times. It's become institutionalised and less willing to speak out. It is out dated in my view. I'm not towing the party line which is in part probably why they don't promote 'Roaming Wild' very much even though it is about their founders!! But our views - yours and mine- are not dissimilar, with perhaps the exception that the original campaign was vital and powerful at the time and for many years - during the sixties and seventies, perhaps into eighties. (CiWF does criticise very actively to be fair a lot of the meaningless ‘high welfare’ labels - Red Tractor and the like but I get your point.) Let's keep fighting the power!
P.S. may be of interest: https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/environment/speciesism-2353/
I didn't mean to downplay your grandparents' achievements, but rather to compare them to CiWF as it is today. I apologize if it came across wrong.
I won't deny that CiWF has made a difference for animals trapped in the system, but is getting individuals out of cages better, or just a different kind of bad?
Welfare doesn't just alleviate people's conscience. Parts of the industry see welfare as a means to increase their profits. And so the violence continues.
In the article you've kindly referred me to - which does a great job of highlighting the hypocrisy inherent in speciesism - you attached greater concern to factory farmed animals.
I can understand why, but I do believe that when welfare organizations speak out against factory farming - and they seem to speak out against little else - they are telling people that there's nothing wrong with oppressing and killing other animals per se. Doesn't this do more harm than good?
The question is, of course, how do you end factory farming so long as speciesism is an acceptable way of thinking? It seems to me a fool's errand, but it does keep the cash flowing.
Have you read the article by James LaVeck called "Invasion of the Movement Snatchers". It's about the blurring of the line between animal advocacy (welfare in particular) and animal agriculture.
Although it was written in 2006, it seems to be more relevant than ever. I've recently found out that welfare organizations are buying shares of companies like JBS. So now they're not just profiting indirectly. They're literally a part of the meat economy.
Where do they get the money? Mostly through effective altruism, it seems; another harmful movement.
Even if we believe the end justifies the means - which I don't think we should - their end isn't to put a stop to the violence, but to codify and regulate the abuses ad infinitum.
Thank you for that Michael, I appreciate it.
'....is getting individuals out of cages better, or just a different kind of bad?'
Yes, I think so 'a different kind of bad' or maybe a relative level of badness I'd say, slightly lower down the suffering spectrum but then that's hard to measure.
'...Parts of the industry see welfare as a means to increase their profit'
I agree, lots of profiteering from the ancillary industries, as well as unethical vets who prop up the system as careerists. (Of course that's not all vets - many speak out against factory farming-Emma Milne who blurbed 'RW' as an example.)
'....they are telling people that there's nothing wrong with oppressing and killing other animals per se. Doesn't this do more harm than good?'
Do you mean the kind of individuals who might avoid/be against factory farmed food but agree with hunting wild animals? Joe Rogan types? Overall, I'm not sure about the harm/good ratio. I mean I think there is still much more focus in the mainstream on single issue animal concerns - which I support too - my mum has raised thousands for 'Save the Rhino' for example - but that people generally find it easier to support say saving a rhino or adopting an orangutan even while they eat bacon. But I may have misunderstood your question.
.'..how do you end factory farming so long as speciesism is an acceptable way of thinking?'
I agree, we should be at the point philosophically and ethically where the eradication of this 'ism' is connected (as it so directly often is) to the eradication of all the other 'isms'. (Example: migrant workers & poorer individuals often being the ones who suffer most because of the animal industry - spray from farms onto homes, poor workers exploited in abattoirs/ on farms for lack of other options, 'food deserts' etc.)
"....Have you read the article by James LaVeck called "Invasion of the Movement Snatchers"?'
No, but I will definitely check it out. (I didn't know this about JBS.)
'....to codify and regulate the abuses ad infinitum.'
Yes, Peter and Anna's first/early campaign was called Project '70 (started in 1967)- and the aim was that factory farming would be over by 1970 & CiWF would have, to quote Peter, 'put itself out of business' - this now seems perhaps naive but my feeling is the next stage would have been towards a world without speciesism. As factory farming is now bigger than ever (population growth in part, amongst other factors), it's time to just go direct to the next stage in my view - that is attempting to stop factory farming isn't good enough. (Small point: I don't think the entire world can be vegan - as examples, on the plateaus of Tibet it's very hard to grow much in the way of plant food or for inuits a vegan diet does not seem possible - but beyond these small populations I think that is the way.)