HSUS and other agribusinesses battle over Issue 2 in Ohio: Hitler and Mussolini battle over Europe

I know the title probably sounds incendiary, but relax, it's only a metaphor. The similarity is not that HSUS, other agribusinesses or the state of Ohio are dictatorial regimes bent on world domination and eugenics (although I'm not an insider to any and can't make any claims one way or another); it's that they are content to participate in a haggle over how best to kill nonhuman animals so that people can feel better about that killing without concerning themselves in the slightest over the rights of those they are violating in the process.

This blog is all about Issue 2 in Ohio, a law that proposes �a constitutional amendment to create the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board.� HSUS is opposed. Their position? �Why is The Humane Society of the United States opposing Issue 2? While designed to give the appearance of helping farm animals, Issue 2 is little more than a power grab by Ohio�s agribusiness lobby.�

That sounds familiar. But let's look at what's being claimed here. There's no statement about the moral necessity of veganism. There's no statement about animal rights. There's not even a statement about promoting a reduction in the consumption of nonhuman animal products and labour. There's no statement about reduction even for human health or human environmental benefits. There isn't even a clear statement about nonhuman animal welfare or humane treatment. Just that industry shouldn't be left to regulate itself because it gives false appearances.

http://www.hsus.org/legislation_laws/ballot_initiatives/ohio_issue_2.html

HSUS claims that the �industry-dominated 'animal care' council proposed by Issue 2 is really intended to thwart meaningful improvements in how the millions of farm animals in Ohio are treated on large factory farms." Now, I won't speculate that HSUS is really involved in this campaign because it cares about driving publicity for its donor campaigns. I won't speculate that HSUS isn't really all that interested in the millions of farm animals in Ohio for their own sakes. I won't speculate that they're opposed to this law because they're not a part of the board.

But what should I infer from this? It's not clear how HSUS' participation on the board or their cooperation with agribusiness would do anything other than give appearances without doing much of anything for nonhuman animals. It's not clear that HSUS takes the lives of nonhuman animals very seriously, least of all, farm animals. It also sounds like a complaint about a lost business opportunity to sell indulgences to the public so that we all feel better about harming the nonhuman animals that we do. It's also worth pointing out that those choices are almost utterly trivial for any of us to avoid.

I will say that anyone who takes nonhuman animals seriously, including HSUS, should promote abolitionist veganism. I'll further point out that HSUS is a business, and so, is motivated by the same concern for profit that motivates all businesses. I don't necessarily disagree that industries shouldn't regulate themselves. But I do think HSUS, if it takes nonhuman animals seriously, should devote its entire budget to promoting an end to animal slavery not to trying to get a cut of the industry action.

Furthermore, no one should mistake HSUS for an animal rights group. Pacelle has agreed on Agritalk that it's not his or HSUS' intent to shut down the livestock industry. That he's opposed to the rights of animals. Pacelle further claims that �No one can reasonably claim that our work is moving in the direction of eliminating animal agriculture."

So, let's be clear. The objective of this campaign is not to lift animals out of slavery. It's not to change the status quo in meaningful ways for nonhuman animals in terms of their property status. It's not to promote veganism. It's not to promote the rights of animals. It is not even to lay the ground work for abolition, which is what some new welfare groups claim they're doing when they do the same work as HSUS is doing. It's not to educate the public about the serious moral need to change our relationship with nonhuman animals. If nonhuman animals live their whole lives in miserable slavery (because all slavery is miserable), that's fine with HSUS and apparently fine with Wayne Pacelle. This campaign is about not letting industry regulate itself to the exclusion of HSUS.

So, in my defense, you'll understand that it's difficult to come up with another appropriate metaphor with which to describe the moral problems here. For example, I could write that the �battle� between HSUS and other agribusiness �undermines� the status quo in the soda industry as much as a �battle� between Coke and Pepsi might over how much sugar to put in soda would. Or I could write that it �challenges� the status quo of the gaming industry as much as a battle between Sony and Nintendo haggling over a new game pad standard might.

Both of these metaphors point out, quite aptly, that HSUS and other agribusinesses are really in a battle over their respective business interests embodied in �humane� animal products. These metaphors make it clear that neither party is interested in abolishing the industry: indeed, they profit from its continuance and are economically dependent on it. But these metaphors leave out the fact that we're not talking about just sugar, soda, games or peripheral ports.

HSUS and the rest of the agribusiness community in Ohio seem to be haggling over how to best to snuff out the lives of living, breathing beings: cows, chickens, pigs, all kinds of nonhuman animals who have an interest in continuing their lives, in being free from suffering, and being free from exploitation, who have a right not to be used in the first place. That's not really a battle between meaningfully different ideologies that propose meaningful social transformation for the oppressed: it's a battle between two rivals who share a dominant and oppressive ideology about who gets to take the credit and makes the big decisions.

It's unfortunate that people who seem to take the lives of at lest some dogs and cats very seriously are so willing o apply a different kind of reasoning to other nonhuman animals who share a common desire to be free. Moreover, this obviously confuses the public about what we owe nonhuman animals, which is not better treatment but rather not to use them unjustifiably at all.

But if you take nonhuman animals seriously, in any way, the most important thing you can do today is to take their rights not to be used as property seriously and go vegan. If you want to see their slavery abolished, then you should consider adopting the abolitionist approach. If you want to learn more about the latter, read through my previous articles or head over to Gary L. Francione's Web site: www.abolitionistapproach.com.