Chicken Cruelty in Australia

There was quite an interesting protest in Brisbane today by animal rights activists campaigning at the world poultry congress.  I don't think I need to articulate the exact concerns of the various animal liberation activists as the response from the Australian Chicken Federation (ACF) is much more interesting.

Dr. Dubs of the ACF claims that up to eighteen chickens reside in each square meter of factory farm.  The total quantity of animals allowed in a given square meter, in this case chicken's, is set by "industry standards".  Dr. Dubs states that eighteen chickens per square meter of factory farm is below this "industry standard" and, I would guess, this makes it OK to farm chickens in the way we do - in factory farms.

I've gotten wind of the ACF's response only via the media (they don't have a press release available on their website) so I'm not exactly sure what is meant by "industry standards" but whatever these standards are is not a good enough premise to base an argument upon.  The ACF's response may be (kindly) formalised as follows:

1. There is a pre-existing set of industry guidelines dictating how animals are farmed in Australia.
2. These guidelines dictate what is ethical practice.
3. The ACF follows these guidelines.
∴ the ACF is participating in ethical practice.

Lets have a look at these premises in turn.

Premise 1.

There is most certainly a set of guidelines in Australia dealing with farming practices; in fact, I would be surprised to discover that there is only one.  But just because these guidelines exist does not make them "right".  How were these guidelines established?  Was the ACF involved in any way in their construction? etc. are valid questions to ask.  Perhaps more important a question is how are these guidelines reformed?  How often?  I don't know the answer to these questions but I'd hope these questions were on the mind of some of today's protesters.

Now, the fact that these guidelines exist is not something to hide behind.  Were the guidelines to state that each factory farm could have one chicken per square metre I'm pretty confident that the ACF themselves would be up in arms.  The fact of the existence of the guidelines is not enough to ensure their validity.

Premise 2.

Without getting into an academic spin I'm pretty willing to accept this premise.  This is not to say that whatever these industry guidelines contain is in any way ethical, but to say that a system of guidelines inforced over an industry may very well be able to articulate a set of descriptive ethical principles to follow.  Not to say that practice P is ethical of all of society, but to say that if Industry I practices practice P then it is, hypothetically speaking, ethical.

Premise 2. is, of course, a sub-premise of premise 1..  It would best be articulated as a counterfactual conditional - Premise 2. is true if Premise 1. is true.  Of course Premise 2. could be taken on its own too, but in this particular context its validity is tied to the validity of Premise 1. as we are talking about a particular set of guidelines.

Premise 3.

This is a premise that I can't really engage with but will for the sake of argument accept at face value.  At least the ACF argue that they follow, and even better, industry guidelines.

Conclusion.

This is a valid conclusion.  If all of these premises are true then this conclusion is true.

The linked premises (1. and 2.) I have to disagree with.  Their opposition is the basis of my argument.  I could disagree with both of them in many ways but I will just focus on one.  The chicken industry in Australia, even following these guidelines, is just plain cruel!  The guidelines may certainly dictate what the authors think is an ethically sound practice but the reality is that the factory farming of chickens in Australia is not an ethical practice.

A number of years ago, before I became a veg, and before I entered academia, I worked in a factory farm that grew chickens.  I also worked in this farm's chicken abattoir.  The conditions were disgraceful.  The birds had no respect, were often (more often than not) mis-treated by staff, and engaged in cannibalistic behavior due to their living conditions.  The abattoir was just as bad.  Live birds being bled from their throats and entering the scalding and feathering tanks was a common site (missing the shock stage).  As a cleaner at the abattoir (on of my many jobs) I often found birds inside the scalding tanks that had become dislodged from their transport chain and had been burned alive (they were missing the neck cut).

I could go on like this for quite some time but I'm sure you get the picture.  The fact that some "industry standards" exist is not, in and of itself, grounds to base an argument upon.  The goal of these standards may certainly be to articulate some descriptive ethical norm but they do not acheive this.  Premise 1. and Premise 2. are, therefore,  fallacious.  I'm willing to accept, for the sake of argument, that Premise 3. is correct but this is not sufficient to guarantee the conclusion.

The ACF cannot claim that they are acting in an ethical manner by referring to these guidelines alone.  If they desire to argue that the factory farming of chickens in Australia is currently an ethical practice then they need to give some reasons, some valid premises to base an argument upon.  Until this is the case then their practices are contentious at best.