SDGs and Farmed Animals - Why have we ignored them?

Introduction:

The Sustainable Development Goals or Global Goals are a collection of 17 interlinked global goals designed to be a "blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all". The SDGs were set in 2015 by the United Nations General Assembly and are intended to be achieved by the year 2030.

(Source: Wikipedia)

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by all United Nations Member States in 2015, provides a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future. At its heart are the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which are an urgent call for action by all countries - developed and developing - in a global partnership. They recognize that ending poverty and other deprivations must go hand-in-hand with strategies that improve health and education, reduce inequality, and spur economic growth – all while tackling climate change and working to preserve our oceans and forests.

So what are these 17 goals?

These goals are supposed to transform the earth as we know it.


GOAL 1: No Poverty                                                GOAL 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

GOAL 2: Zero Hunger                                              GOAL 10: Reduced Inequality

GOAL 3: Good Health and Well-being                    GOAL 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

GOAL 4: Quality Education                                     GOAL 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

GOAL 5: Gender Equality                                        GOAL 13: Climate Action

GOAL 6: Clean Water and Sanitation                       GOAL 14: Life Below Water

GOAL 7: Affordable and Clean Energy                   GOAL 15: Life on Land

GOAL 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth        GOAL 16: Peace and Justice Strong Institutions

                                                                                   GOAL 17: Partnerships to achieve the Goal
(Source: https://sdgs.un.org/goals)



What about farmed animals? 

Let us look at some statistics as to why it is crucial to have reduction and ban on animal farming, for us to reach some of these above goals.

It is a known fact that animal farming is the second largest contributor to greenhouse gases, second only to fossil fuels. It is also a primary cause for deforestation, water and air pollution and loss of biodiversity.

Before all the naysayers are up in arms and start shouting about how these figures are more relevant to the western world, let me point out the following facts:

Cattle count: IndiaVs US: 192.49 million to 94.4 million

Each year, a single cow will belch about 220 pounds of methane. Methane from cattle is shorter lived than carbon dioxide but 28 times more potent in warming the atmosphere.

(Source: https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/making-cattle-more-sustainable/)

So do the math - are we not adding substantially more methane to the atmosphere?  And these cattle may not be eaten as beef within India, but we top the list as the largest exporters of beef in the world! We also raise cows and buffaloes by the million to satiate our need for milk and milk products.  Even though lactose intolerance is a widely known fact, parents in India still force milk down the throats of reluctant children.  Why? Because their great-grannies, who did not understand how anyone could be allergic to milk told them that it is the healthiest!

Lets move on to water consumption - 

In as early as 2010, M.M. Mekonnen and A.Y. Hoekstra published a paper called "The green, blue and grey - Water footprint of farm animals and animal products" for UNESCO-IHE.

The table is self explanatory - with the exception of nuts and pulses, practically all animal products consume more water per kilogram of yield. 

Now for the health aspects of animal products - 

As I researched for this part of the article, I found plenty of material to substantiate the claim that animal products are detrimental to human health, but most of those articles were either a part off or written by animal welfare organizations.  Any link to those would immediately have the very same naysayers screaming again.  

"A new study adds to the evidence that eating red meat on a regular basis may shorten your lifespan. The findings suggest that meat eaters might help improve their health by substituting other healthy protein sources for some of the red meat they eat."

(Source:https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/risk-red-meat#)

This opinion is seconded by several others in the medical community such as Harvard Medical School (https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/whats-the-beef-with-red-meat) and Medical News Today (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326156#heart-disease-and-trimethylamine-n-oxide)

Unsanitary Conditions of animal farming:

Add to the general unhealthiness of meat, the dirtiest surroundings in which these animals are reared in South Asian countries and you have a sure recipe for sickness, viruses and epidemics.  If you don't believe me, just visit a poultry farm or a fish pond in your neighbourhood.  If you don't come away with a feeling of revulsion, I'll be surprised.  Our abattoirs are no better.  So regardless of what the health benefits of meat are, they are completely negated by the extremely unhealthy way in which animal farming happens in this part of the world.

The food for animals vs humans debate:

In January 2019, FAO put out a statement that said that a large percentage of the grains consumed by animals is not fit for human consumption. (https://www.cgiar.org/news-events/news/fao-sets-the-record-straight-86-of-livestock-feed-is-inedible-by-humans/). Wonder what could be the motivations of such a declaration! In contrast, this 2014 article in vox.com, based on a map released by National Geographic seems more relevant and less compromised. (https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel-animal-feed).

Now lets compare the above information and see which SDGs are unlikely to be met:

Goal 2 seems unlikely to be met since we are more interested in feeding animals which in turn can feed fewer richer people.

Goal 3 is partially dependent on Goal 2 but also independently, Goal 3 can be met if all people get healthy and clean food to eat. But who wants to eat vegetables??

Goal 6 is doomed! When you are hell bent on using up available water to grow unhealthy foods, I don't think it will be possible to save water at all, clean or otherwise.

Goals 14 and 15 are continuously in danger of being blown out of the discussion.  Otherwise, would it be possible for large fishing companies to pollute our seas and destroy marine life? And would cruelty to wildlife and farmed animals not make the cut?

A few Animal Protection Organizations (APOs) are lobbying with UN for animal welfare to be included in the SDGs but on the whole, this has not been completely taken up by advocacy groups working for farmed animals.

(https://worldanimal.net/world-animal-net-blog/item/439-sustainable-development-goals-and-animal-issues-preparing-for-the-un-s-high-level-political-forum)

The concept of SDGs is great and if we have the will, these goals can be met.  But if industry believes that profits come before sustainability, these goals are not worth the time and effort it took to frame them.  Wonder if anyone in the corridors of power is listening?

Rights Vs Welfare - What's better?

Animal Rights activists are those who believe that animals are nobody's property and any animal ownership is viewed as slavery.  

Animal welfarists are those who believe that incremental changes in the situation of animals towards the better through "humane" measures will some day lead to total freedom of animals.

As I started researching for this article, I could not find a single movement that started with welfare as its primary motive. For instance, when Ishwar Chand Vidyasagar started the movements for abolition of child marriage or widow remarriage, his motive was to eradicate the problem from the root.  He took the route of bringing about legislation for these causes.  So would I call him a "welfarist" or "activist"?  Welfare was the end result of the activism that he undertook on behalf for children and widows. 

(Source: https://www.dnaindia.com/)

Similarly, when the civil rights movement started out in the United States of America, it was to free people of colour from the oppression of the so-called upper class.  What was the end result?  The Civil Rights Act of 1957? The Civil Rights Act of 1964? The voting rights? or the housing rights?  Activists like Martin Luther King fought for the freedom of the African - Americans but the end result was the ability of the black people to participate equally in electing their leaders or buying houses in whichever locality suited to them.  I would define this as welfare.

(Source: https://www.adl.org/education/resources/backgrounders/civil-rights-movement)

Closer home and in the recent past, LGBTQ rights have received a fillip especially from the Indian Judiciary.

Post Independence, The Delhi High Court decision in Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi of 2009 found Section 377 and other legal prohibitions against private, adult, consensual, and non-commercial same-sex conduct to be in direct violation of fundamental rights provided by the Indian Constitution. Section 377 stated that: "Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine," with the added explanation that: "Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.

On 6 September 2018, the Supreme Court issued its verdict. The Court unanimously ruled that Section 377 is unconstitutional as it infringed on the fundamental rights of autonomy, intimacy, and identity, thus legalising homosexuality in India. The Court explicitly overturned its 2013 judgement.

"Criminalising carnal intercourse is irrational, arbitrary and manifestly unconstitutional."
— Chief Justice Dipak Misra

"History owes an apology to these people and their families. Homosexuality is part of human sexuality. They have the right of dignity and free of discrimination. Consensual sexual acts of adults are allowed for [the] LGBT community."
— Justice Indu Malhotra

"It is difficult to right a wrong by history. But we can set the course for the future. This case involves much more than decriminalizing homosexuality. It is about people wanting to live with dignity."
— Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud

Furthermore, it ruled that any discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a violation of the Indian Constitution.

(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_India#)

Justice Chandrachud's statement about people wanting to live with dignity was the end result of activism spread over several decades. So yet again the concept of welfare of a set of people who are different from others.

Let's go back to animal welfare. 

Providing good animal welfare is sometimes defined by a list of positive conditions which should be provided to the animal. This approach is taken by the Five Freedoms and the three principles of Professor John Webster.

The Five Freedoms are:

• Freedom from thirst and hunger – by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigour
• Freedom from discomfort – by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area
• Freedom from pain, injury, and disease – by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment
• Freedom to express most normal behavior – by providing sufficient space, proper facilities, and company of the animal's own kind
• Freedom from fear and distress – by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering

John Webster defines animal welfare by advocating three positive conditions: Living a natural life, being fit and healthy, and being happy.  And this would never be achieved through any welfare measures!

Effectively, welfarists are saying that caged hens are frustrated and their produce is reduced.  Hence keep them in your backyards. Activists counter this by advocating the complete renouncement of eggs, thus making it unnecessary to keep hens either in cages or in your backyard.

Economics will not allow either the welfarists or the activists to win.  

Take dairy, for example.  Dairy is a huge business in India, vigorously promoted by the Government.  Hard-core vegetarians are the main players in this business.  These are people who believe in cow vigilantism, are die-hard critics of meat-eaters and attribute all things religious to non-violence.  But speak to them about eschewing dairy, and these very same people become violent.  Some of them even accuse activists of hurting religious sentiments by asking people to avoid dairy so that the cruelty meted out these gentle creatures is reduced.

The reason for this two-faced behaviour?  $$$$$$!!

(Source: https://www.nddb.coop/information/stats)

From 2011 to 2019, the contribution from milk and dairy products to the total value of output from the livestock sector is 63 to 67 percent.  Now tell me what's important? Economics or ethics?

If you look at this from a welfare point of view, you may say, its ok to drink milk, but buy it from animals that are free to graze.   Take a look at this excerpt from a renowned science-related website:

"A new study by Newcastle University proves that organic farmers who let their cows graze as nature intended are producing better quality milk.

The Nafferton Ecological Farming Group study found that grazing cows on organic farms in the UK produce milk which contains significantly higher beneficial fatty acids, antioxidants and vitamins than their conventional ‘high input’ counterparts."

The jury is still out as far as I am concerned, abolitionism or welfarism.  Unlike other movements, we may find that the route to animal rights may well be via animal welfare!  

But don't take too long, the environment may not be able to wait till animal rights are achieved!

Animal Rights Activism in India - Evolution through the last century

activism

noun [ U ] POLITICS

US  UK /ˈæk.tɪ.vɪ.zəm/

Animal Rights in India - The Place of Animals in Prehistoric Indian Societies

Animal Rights Laws in India have been around for a while now. And traditionally, animals have had a place of importance in households of ancient India. This article explores the position of animals in the lives of our ancestors as informed to us through religious scriptures, mythology, temple carvings and excavations.

Many sources suggest that the domestication of animals began in the Neolithic age between 7000 BC and 1000 BC depending in which part of the country you look at. It was sooner in the south of India and later in the northern part of the country. This was also the time when the Neolithic man started settled agriculture. Why did they stop foraging for food or hunting? Many experts feel that the pressure of providing for more mouths forced the Neolithic man to change his ways from his ancestors, the Paleolithic and Mesolithic man. During this time, animals that were useful in farming were first tamed.

Ancient scriptures refer to the use of milk, ghee and other milk products in rituals.
Curd was considered an essential ingredient in the preparation of madhuparka and charanamrit. Excavation sites at Harappa (3300 - 1300 BC) suggests that dairy was a part of their diet and Rigveda, was written in 1700 BC. Kamdhenu was considered a priceless possession amongst the Aryans and protection of cows was of utmost importance in their view.

Dogs, buffaloes, elephants, goats and fowls were next in line to be domesticated. The Vedas also provide for the treatment of ailments in animals. Well known amongst those are Atharvaveda, Haya Ayurveda (composed by Shalihotra for horse husbandry and treatment) and Gaja Ayurveda (composed by Sage Palakapya for elephant treatment).

Nakula and Sahadeva of Mahabharata, Lord Krishna and Buddha are all considered champions of the animal world.

Chanakya, guide and advisor of Chandragupta Maurya of the Gupta Dynasty, in his book Arthashastra lists information of different animal departments, rules of meat science, animal based products such as skins and fur and care and management of animals. This was the scenario till 800 AD till Islamic invasion of India.

Introduction:

It would seem that livestock keeping was more of a tradition than economic activity in ancient india and that leads us to believe that animal would have been much better treated then than today. The vedas, Puranas, Brahmanas and epics are a treasure trove of information on animal care, health and disease cure. In a country where religion is at the centre of life, the cow occupied an inportant place not just as producers of dairy but as an icon for cultural ethos.

In proto-historic times (from 3000 BC to 600 BC covering the Bronze Age and Chalcolithic culture from the beginning of Harappan civilization up to the beginning of the historical period in 6th century BC), sedentary lifestyles made a case for rearing animals for transport and farming. It took the Early Historic man to enslave and misuse animals in the battke field.

Harappa and its animals

Excavations of Harappa in Montgomeri district, Punjab and Mohenjo-daro in Larkana district, Sindh (now in Pakistan) in 1920–22 provided valuable archaeological evidence of a well developed civilization, which was 5000 to 6000 years old. Seals recovered from Indus valley provided knowledge of bulls, buffaloes, goats, elephants, ibex, and many other animals.


       .                 

But even at this time, animal sacrifice and cruelty to animals was a norm, as seen in the seal above.

Vedic age

Rigveda, the oldest holy book of Aryans, has a lot of information on animals, their rearing and use. Animals were considered wealth by the Aryans. Cattle was kept on pastures, which were near to their dwellings. Cows were milked thrice a day. Castration of males was practiced and oxen were used for farm transport, plowing and irrigation, dogs for guarding houses and for hunting of boars. Sheep were kept mostly for wool and goats for milk. The cow was accorded high sanctity in the Vedic period. Barley, sugarcane, and leftovers of sesame after extraction of oil were used for feeding of animals.

Yet again, as with the Harappans, Aryans too believed in Animal sacrifices.

Epic period

In later Vedic period (2000–1000 BC, the age of Iron and painted Grey Ware), which includes the two epics, i.e., Mahabharata (c. 1400 BC) and Ramayana (c. 2000 BC), which depict the religious, social, political, and economic life of the Aryans during post-Vedic period. In the epic Mahabharata, references have been made to many domestic animals including cattle, sheep, goats, dogs, elephants, and horses and their uses. Cow dung was used as manure. Many temples carry depictions of these epics and one of the most common reliefs on these temple walls is the different kinds of uses of animals.



                     

Ramayana is the oldest literature of Sanskrit, although no written history is available of that period. The treatment of various ailments using medicinal herbs and surgical procedures are described at length. Various uses of oil as preservative and treatment are mentioned.

Mauryan age

Like many other things, animal husbandry also grew in the Mauryan age (322–232 BC).

The Mauryan age preceded the period of Buddha and Mahavir, who preached non-violence towards animals. The earliest Buddhist text “Suttanipata” describes cattle as a giver of food, beauty, and happiness (annada, vannada, and sukhada) and therefore deserves to be protected.

According to Kautilya’s Arthashastra, cow was a worshiped animal. It was one of the first duties of the King to worship the cow with her calf and bull. The killing of cow was a deadly sin. Buffalo also became a recognized dairy animal by this period. In the Arthashastra, goat has been described as an important milch animal like cows and buffaloes. Sheep were raised for wool. 

According to Arthashastra, in a breeding herd, 4 bulls should be provided for every 10 cows/buffaloes. Feeding of animals on pasture was the main practice. It was the duty of the King to identify and provide enough land for pastures near each village. The Gopa (village accountant) was supposed to keep the details of the pasturelands. In Arthashastra, there is separate mention of dry straw (trina) and green grasses (yavasa), indicating a clear concept about green and dry fodder in the feeding of animals. Feeding of oil cakes has also been recommended. Rations for cow, buffalo, mule, camel, etc. have been described separately at several places. Milking was done either once in the morning during summer and spring or twice, i.e., in the morning and evening during rainy season, autumn, and first part of winter. Difference in the fat content in buffalo and cow milk was well known. Milk fat was usually used as ghee or butter oil. 

• There was capital punishment for stealing or hurting a cow. 
• When a person caused a bull to fight with another bull, he was fined. 
• If any person injured a bull, he was heavily fined. 
• Veterinary services were essential services during the Mauryan period. 

In this period, asses were used to carry loads. Horses were used to yoke different kinds of chariots like festival chariots, battle chariots, and traveling chariots. In the stables, different kinds of horses were kept separately. Horses were regularly trained for warfare. There were horses of many breeds. Arthashastra has graded them as best, middle, and ordinary quality. Thoroughbred horses were recommended parched rice, drippings, minced meat, red rice¬powder, and grasses. Mules have also been mentioned in Arthashastra, indicating their presence in the Mauryan period. Elephants were very important animals in the Mauryan period. They were used in warfare, as they were very useful for storming fortresses; breaking upon massive doors and to move even in dense forests and marshy lands. There were about 6000 elephants with Nandas and 9000 with Chandragupta Maurya. Elephants for war and riding were housed inside the fort. Whoever killed an elephant was sentenced to death. Tusks of an elephant were considered precious.

(Source: https://www.vethelplineindia.co.in/veterinary-medicine-and-animal-keeping-in-ancient-india/)

Ashoka period

Ashoka, grandson of Chandragupta Maurya was the one who shaped veterinary profession as it is today in India. The Kalinga war and the destruction that it left in its wake, made Ashoka turn to Buddhism for guidance. The present-day Veterinary Council of India adopted its insignia, the sculpture of a bull and a part of the text of the stone edict from the period of Emperor Ashoka (around 300 BC), which projected the veterinary profession as its “best heritage” (Singh, 2002a). It is described that the first veterinary hospital existed in Ashoka’s regime (Schwabe, 1978). The ‘Baniyan Hospital’ of Suratis is believed to be one of them, which consisted of a large piece of land enclosed by high walls. Provision for keeping indoor patients was made inside to accommodate animals.

Cow

Cows were regarded as wealth and were the backbone of the economy of ancient Indians, i.e., Aryans. Wars were fought for acquiring cows. Cows were high milk-yielders and were milked thrice a day by women (Duhitras). They knew the animal feeding practices and fed them with dry hay and green fodder.

However, castration of males by crushing the testicles between two stones was also practiced. If that is not cruelty, what is?

Cow prosperity started declining with increasing human population and socioeconomic conflict. In case of buffalo, it is the utility of the buffalo that has increased its prospects.

Rulers from 600 BC used to inscribe pictures of bulls (rarely cows) on coins, which show their importance and utility. Round coins (occasionally rectangular or square) weighing 5–7 g made up of copper, silver, lead, or gold were used as currency.

Buffaloes, sheep, goats and fowls came to importance in ancient India once their economic value became obvious. As time passed, people realised that there was profit to be made from these animals and then started animal abuse.

India's first national animal welfare law, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (1960), criminalizes cruelty to animals, though exceptions are made for the treatment of animals used for food and scientific experiments.

Even today, the fines meted out to offenders are minimal and hardly make any impact. But that is a discussion for another day!

Why elbow room?

Loosely defined as breathing space or freedom, we all require elbow room sometime or the other.  In the space that I currently operate, i.e., real estate, we are trying to provide that in a more animate way than inanimate.  Hence, second homes! More space, more elbow room.

This concept of elbow room can be applied to all aspects of our life. In our profession, where we would like a little more freedom to use that amazing idea to at home, where we would like to unwind after a long day without having to do the dishes.

Think of all that we can do if we were allowed to think out of the box. Our schools would be breeding grounds for entrepreneurs who applied knowledge instead of learning by rote. Our colleges would allow scientists and inventors to flourish and all the brains would not be looking for more research oriented environment than ours.