One major difficulty in the debate concerning the use of animals has been the varied use of the terms "Animal Welfare" and "Animal Rights". The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) has established a policy on animal welfare and animal rights which provides good working definitions of the two concepts: "Animal welfare is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of animal wellbeing, including proper housing, management, nutrition, disease prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when necessary, humane euthanasia. Animal rights is a philosophical view and personal value characterized by statements by various animal rights groups. Animal welfare and animal rights are not synonymous terms. The AVMA wholeheartedly endorses and adopts promotion of animal welfare as official policy; however, the AVMA cannot endorse the philosophical views and personal values of animal rights advocates when they are incompatible with the responsible use of animals for human purposes, such as food, fiber, and research conducted for the benefit of both humans and animals." To put it another way an individual who believes in animal welfare is usually able to accept the use of animals for food, pets, or in research as long as they are treated humanely. An individual who truly believes in animal rights generally believes in the often repeated animal rights slogan that "a pig is a dog is a rat is a boy", which means that there is no important difference between an animal and a human.

While it can be debated where "welfare" and "rights" overlap or diverge it is useful, in any discussion of these issues, to determine if both sides are using the same, or at least similar, definitions. Many people will tell you that they are animal rights activists and then proceed to tell you about their pets, apparently unaware that the animal rights philosophy views pet ownership as slavery. Other activists will tell you about their work at the animal shelter where they must euthanitize many unadopted animals each week so they are in favor of required sterilization for pets, apparently unaware that the animal rights philosophy views animals equal to humans and therefore it would be murder to euthanitize and unethical to sterilize them. Another barrier to discussion is the fact that each of us has different opinions and standards of what constitutes humane care.

Unfortunately some socalled animal rights activists have used violent tactics to express their feelings. The result is that the radical elements of the movement have been labeled terrorists by the FBI. The National Association for Biomedical Research has documented 107 illegal incidents since 1981 totaling many million dollars of damage. These incidents include several fire bombings and one attempted murder. A survey of 574 animalrights activists conducted by Dr. Scott Plous found that 80% valued non human life equally with human life, 85% wanted to eliminate all animal research and more than 60% favored lab breakins. Interestingly, half thought their #1 priority should be eliminating the use of animals for food and clothing.

As reported in the Western Livestock Reporter, Nov. 18 1992: "Animal rights terrorism seems to be increasing. Last month, terrorists smashed windshields on Swanson Meat trucks in Minneapolis and then spray painted the Animal Liberation Front logo on the vehicles. Earlier, five trucks were firebombed after terrorists spraypainted the slogan 'Meat is Murder" on the vehicles." "At Simek's Meats and Seafood in Minneapolis terrorist organizations smashed windows, put quickdry glue in locks and spraypainted the message 'Meat is dead and you are next.'" Activists have burned sale barns, meat packing plants and have attacked individual farms as well.

School children are becoming a major target for the socalled educational efforts by animal rights activists. Although their message is advertised as being about environmental awareness or the humane care of animals the real agenda is antimeat. Animal agriculture is attacked as harmful to the environment and bad for health.

An article in the May/June 1993 issue of the Animal's Agenda, an animal rights activist publication, contains one example of the activist's thinking:

"Ads denouncing the eating of meat also play right into our opponent's hands. Certainly meat is an abomination, but when the public's impression of the animal movement, fed by disinformation, becomes 'Oh yes those are the kooks who want to outlaw meat,' we are only making enemies. We stimulate far more in opposition than we touch hearts. Meat is too deeply ingrained in the culture to be easily dislodged. It is a source of great pleasure to many millions. By denouncing meat before TV cameras or newspaper reporters, we are telling the people watching at home that they are immoral. They dislike this and so form a bad opinion of us. Unfortunately, they've never seen films of what happens in the slaughterhouse, and never will because the TV stations won't run them, even as a paid ad, for fear of upsetting people (in particular, their sponsors). The bottom line is that we alienate people, hurt our cause and delight our enemies. They would like nothing more than to see us become identified as the ones who 'want to tell you what you can eat, what you can wear.' How much more effective it would be to channel the time and money we put into antimeat appeals into increased opposition to factory farming. Most people would be receptive to that message, especially if they felt we weren't trying to outlaw their favorite foods. We can also actively promote the increasing number of fake meats on the market. The Morningstar Farms line by Worthington Foods is not only a stunning duplication of meat tastes and textures, it is actually available in most supermarkets at popular prices. If we could get people to try it, they might not go back to meat. Although some of the company's products have egg whites in them, they're still a big change in the right direction. We're very good at boycotting bad firms. Why not devote even more resources to promoting and going out of our way to purchase, the products of firms that are making good faith effort to eliminate animal exploitation from their research and testing methods? Many of us are also environmentalists. Yet on an issue like whether ranchers should be allowed to graze their cattle on public lands, perhaps we should depart from the environmentalist's opposition and acknowledge that forcing these cows off public lands could well mean forcing them onto a factory farm. The Clinton Administration has got to be an improvement on animal rights, but it will hardly be perfect. Bill Clinton, with his Wimpyesque consumption of hamburgers, has done more to promote McDonald's than anyone in memory (though he has also restored the good name of broccoli). Vice President Al Gore, though an environmentalist who has cosigned proanimal legislation, has his blind spots. One good thing about the new administration has done is reverse Bush's ban on fetal tissue research. Why not get out the trumpets and promote fetal tissue as a far superior alternative to using animals in practically every field of research? There is one other thing we could do to increase our effectiveness, and for some of us it will be most difficult. That is to tie our movement to the most popular movement in America: Christianity. There is much in scripture that supports our cause. It should, for instance, be pointed out that the Bible says 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,' it isn't specifying the species of the 'others'. To take a perfectly literal translation, as conservative Christians favor, one must extend the treatment dictated by that edict to animals. We should point out the evidence that Jesus was a vegetarian. We should remind Christians that the animals sensed he was special before the people did. Christianity is the most powerful force in the country. If we could harness it for our animal friends, we would make an enormous breakthrough."

Obviously some activists are willing to do or say anything to advance their cause. None of us should overlook however that the majority of society currently supports the humane use of animals. However, our ability to continue to use animals depends on our commitment to humane care and to continued research to improve that care.

Many producer and commodity organizations are recognizing the need for animal care guidelines for their producers, in an effort to improve animal care and to preclude the need for more governmental regulation. The National Pork Producers Council has published the "Swine Care Handbook".

In 1988, a group of 20 academic, governmental, industrial and scientific organizations published the "Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching". North Carolina State University complies with this guide in all of its research and teaching with agricultural animals. The developers of this guide were careful to exclude commercial farming and ranching operations from their purview; however, this guide is a good reference for these operations too.

The American Veterinary Medical Association has adopted several general positions on food animals including confinement rearing, transportation, sale yard practices, and humane slaughter. They currently have the following three positions specifically on swine: 1. Individual tethers and stalls for sows are acceptable when monitored, maintained and adjusted by responsible personnel. 2. The standards for housing, flooring, environmental control, and stocking density as set forth by the North Central Extension Agricultural Engineers, Midwest Plan Service, Ames, Iowa, are acceptable as currently published, as the guide for the humane care of swine in confinement. 3. Castration, ear notching, and tail docking of piglets are acceptable management practices when performed in a sanitary manner during the first week of life.

Producers, veterinarians, and consumers of animal products all have a common interest and obligation to provide optimum humane care for animals. Working together we can assure that militant special interest groups will not dictate unreasonable standards for care. North Carolina State University is dedicated to providing advice about proper methods and to conducting research to improve the current methods used in production. Each producer should ask themselves the following questions: Does my farm follow the guidelines of the Swine Care Handbook of the National Pork Producers Council? Would I be comfortable giving tours of my facility and showing the public how I care for my animals? Does my staff have adequate training in humane care? How can North Carolina State University help me provide better care for my animals?

Suggested Reading

"Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching", First Edition, 1988, Association Headquarters, 309 West Clark Street, Champaign, IL 61820, 2173563182.