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!