Animal Writings

The most commonly cited risks of asking someone to, for example, buy only cage-free eggs are:

• The person being advocated to may think that going cage-free is enough.


• The advocate may miss an opportunity to explain the cruelties of virtually all cage-free operations.


• The advocate may miss an opportunity to convey the basic moral wrongness of creating animals to kill them, or of using animals as resources, etc.


• The person may not consider the source of eggs in baked goods and other products made with eggs.


• The advocate may miss an opportunity to talk about alternatives to eggs, as well as the deep joy of a diet that's as cruelty-free and non-violent as possible.


• The person may have reduced his or her egg intake had the advocate gone with an all-vegan message.

In one-on-one activism, anyway, I think it's easy to overcome all these risks. That is not to say that promoting welfare adjustments is necessarily the way to go. But there may be a tendency to talk about the risks of cage-free messages et al in worst-case terms. And the risks may be largely avoidable.

BTW, for ease of writing, I use cage-free as sort of a stand-in for any welfare improvement.

I've asked people to go cage-free, although it's been a while. When I did that, though, I covered all the bases. I didn't leave anyone with the impression that cage free was sufficient. I let them know about the cruelties inherent in egg production and in simply seeing the hen as a vehicle. I talked about egg alternatives and even shared delicious vegan baked goods. And so forth. They knew the facts and I believe understood the moral arguments.

But the sad fact is, people do things that they know are wrong. Sometimes for decades at a time.

And that, I think is why individual advocates as well as groups try to get people to make incremental changes in their behavior—changes that people will actually do. The second incremental change may be no more threatening or difficult than the first. And so on. But all of them together might might seem preposterous or impossible to people. I wish it weren't so, but it is. Granted, there are exceptions—overnight conversions. But those are the exceptions. (Although maybe we should study those more; maybe we can learn something from them.)

Now if an vegan advocate is going to make a welfare pitch, as part of an overall plan to move a person, and eventually the whole world to veganism and beyond, I think the way in which they make the pitch can make all the difference. Of course, they shouldn't say, "Only buy cage-free eggs and you'll be cool." They should not give the impression that merely reducing cruelty is enough. They should let it be known that there are inherent cruelties and moral transgressions in harming and killing animals for pleasure. They should be steadfast—but in a caring, respectful way—in conveying the principles of veganism: compassion, respect for all sentient life, commitment to non-violence, obligations to refrain from inflicting avoidable harm, and so forth. (This is not a comprehensive list.)

I think this is easy to do.

Now, this phrasing isn't quite right but...I like to take people as far as I can take them. This is a much better than average case, but if it looks like they're eager to start eliminating eggs from their diet right off the bat, why would I ask them to go cage-free? And how will I know if they're interested in eliminating eggs unless I try my best—through education, moral arguments, sharing vegan food, and anything else that comes to mind—to sell, inspire, and persuade them to go that route?

But, as I mentioned before, some people will understand everything you're telling them and yet cling to their ways. You'll try every angle and they don't budge. Or worse yet, they reject you and tune you out. Again, these behaviors seem to me to be like addictions, coupled with lots of fears—conscious and subconscious: of change in general, of being malnourished, of going against one's family, of being "different," of losing one's identity.

These situations are what make advocates consider welfare measures. Asking people to go cage-free, and then subsequently asking them to only buy eggs from small local farms where the hens all have outdoor time and grass, and so on. (This "subsequently" part is key, IMHO, and has not been well-articulated by groups pursuing an incremental welfare strategy; I'll talk about that more in an upcoming post.) The idea is that people for whom eating animal products is so deeply embedded in their daily lives that it's almost like breathing will not be threatened by small changes, and that as more and more people make these changes and minimum accepted welfare standards increase, producers' costs will rise, alternatives will become more cost-effective and more readily accepted, and so forth. All the while, pure vegan activism is going on, also: Activists are asking for vegan products in stores, schools, company cafeterias, and other institutions; handing out literature; holding potlucks; tabling at festivals and events; and so forth. I think this is an essential part of the movement.

Again, I'm not saying welfare pitches are the way to go. Neither am I ruling them out. I would suggest, however, that incremental welfare strategies, when done by vegans, are not the result of capitulation or diminished end goals. They're the result of frustration and an attempt to move things along.

If that is the case, if a vegan animal advocate asks a highly resistant omnivore to buy only cage-free eggs, it should have this effect: "I care so deeply about the animals who are abused and killed for their eggs, it pains me that this exploitation continues, I know in the deepest most profound way that it is wrong and must end, and my obligation to the animals is so strong that if I cannot get you to stop eating eggs, I am compelled to do whatever I can in the interim, as I would want an advocate to do for me were I the victim. Of course, I will continue to push for the complete eradication of animal exploitation, so that we can finally have a peaceful and just world for all sentient creatures."

In other words, a plea for someone to reduce the cruelty of their deeply entrenched habit that they're not going to quit any time soon should come across as highly principled, a means to reduce suffering as much as possible until the horrible killing process ends, an unrelenting desire to do as much as possible for the victims, an impassioned act of caring. It should be seen as one's sincere, earnest, and best effort within the context of vegan advocacy. There shouldn't be any ambiguity or mixed message, and I think this easy to achieve.

At least on a personal level. It may be harder for an organization to convey these sentiments and principles to the masses. But I think it's doable. I could be wrong, but I think one can very broadly extrapolate one-on-one activism techniques to the group and mass communications level.

Do groups that promote welfare improvements convey these sentiments and principles? It varies. In this series, I'm not planning on doing a report card, or critiquing individual groups that employ welfare messages, but I may have some general suggestions and challenge questions for improving the welfare message in upcoming posts. I also plan to discuss what I think are the strongest arguments, from my point of view, for increased all-vegan advocacy.

In the meantime, however, another real-world problem. I welcome your thoughts and advice on this.


I've been trying for about a year to get a local coffee house to add one or more vegan products to its lineup. I don't go there every day, maybe once a week. I like the place and it's close by. I get along well with the owner, and I've talked to her on a number of occasions about everything vegan—animal agriculture, ethics, non-dairy ice cream, eggless baked goods, the marketplace, you name it. I've brought in samples, I've given her brochures, I've called up vendors and asked about distribution, and so forth. As best I can tell, the owner understands the issues pretty well. She occasionally expresses guilt, but basically she won't budge. She (reflexively?) sometimes does the "I don't want to hear about it" response, complete with the raised hand / outward palm gesture. And yes, she understands why she does this and I'll bet at this point she could do a very good job of articulating my position on why she should hear about it. She may cling to the status quo for all the usual reasons, plus I sense she fears her business will suffer if she tries anything vegan. She's tried some soy milks at home and so far she days she doesn't like any of them. She occasionally eats Boca Burgers. That's about the extent of it. (Yes, I've mentioned rice, almond, and oat milk.)

If I keep up my activism, maybe in a year she'll add a non-dairy ice cream or vegan soup. I don't know. I figure friendly, respectful, judiciously applied outreach never hurts, and it comes kind of naturally, and I'm a regular customer anyway, so I'll keep it up. FYI, sometimes we chat about other stuff and animal issues never come up.

The thing is, I think I could get her to switch to cage-free eggs as an interim measure. That's my gut feel from talking to her. I think I can do this without incurring any of the downsides that are often attributed to such moves. I'm confident that she won't become complacent (especially with me as a recurring customer) or be under the false impression that cage-free equals cruelty-free, or that I'm softening my stance, or anything like that. I really don't think this would have any effect on my other outreach; I don't see it pushing back the eventual target; it may be a toe-in-the-water type thing for her.

As has happened with with other establishments (according to their statements in the press), I suspect that one side effect of her buying cage-free eggs would be that she would buy fewer eggs because cage-free eggs are more expensive, and that may be an incentive to look more closely at and/or ramp up non-egg menu items. Although the motivation in that case would be financial rather than ethical, in my experience, once people partially divest themselves from animal products for any reason, it makes it easier for further incremental steps.

So, if I can persuade her to switch to a less cruel form of eggs, without incurring any of the risks often associated with such a move, and it doesn't impact my vegan activism, why would I not do it?

I'm interested in your thoughts. I know this is "duh" but since we discuss what-ifs so often online, just as a reminder: This is a real, not theoretical situation. This is current outreach and real animals will be affected, possibly soon.

Granted, there is some controversy over whether cage-free is less cruel. You may want to respond in two ways: a) assuming it is, b) not assuming it is. As best I can tell, hens would much rather spread their wings and walk on solid ground than walk on wires in a permanently cramped position. But I also realize that factors like density and access to the outdoors make a difference in quality of life in cageless environments, so to the extent I can, if I do this, I'll try to gently guide any purchasing decisions toward the less cruel end of the cage-free spectrum.

Thanks for reading and helping animals.

Labels: activism, advocacy, cage-free, welfare