Veganism and animal welfare, scientific, ethical, and philosophical arguments

The justification for this review article is to understand the position of vegans and those individuals who consume food of animal origin from an unbiased perspective but with a grounding in scientific evidence. This will provide people who eat meat with scientific and ethical arguments to defend their alimentary autonomy in the context of the moral conflict that has emerged in societies regarding the consumption of meat and animal products, which is criticized ­sometimes even attacked­ by activists, ovolactovegetarians, or vegetarians with alimentary habits that stress ethical and moral respect for animals. These individuals refuse to eat meat and animal products but sometimes show disrespect for those who do. In recent decades, veganism and vegetarianism have reached an apogee in some western societies where they are often considered a healthy option for humans that simultaneously fosters animal and environmental welfare. While those diets may provide numerous benefits, they can also entail health risks by failing to provide balance and necessary dietary supplements. Various researchers concur that they are not appropriate for pregnant women, children, or carnivorous or omnivorous pets. Our review of scientific articles in favor and against dietary regimens that lack protein of animal origin leads to the conclusion that these dietary changes, on their own, do not reduce animal suffering or the contamination generated by the meat, dairy, and poultry industries. Finally, it is important to consider that, despite the popular opinion that vegetarianism and veganism are healthy diet alternatives, the diet must be individualized and well-balanced according to each stage of their life cycle.

Uncoupling Meat From Animal Slaughter and Its Impacts on Human-Animal Relationships.

Slaughter sets the debate about what is acceptable to do to animals at an extremely low bar. Recently, there has been considerable investment in developing cell-based meat, an alternative meat production process that does not require the raising and slaughtering of animals, instead using muscle cells cultivated in a bioreactor. We discuss the animal ethics impacts of cell-based and plant-based meat on human-animal interactions from animal welfare and rights perspectives, focusing on industrial meat production scenarios. Our hypothesis is that the insertion of cell-based meat in the global meat market may alleviate farm animal suffering and potentially restore resources for wild fauna. We employed a conservative estimation of the cell-based meat contribution to the global meat market in the year 2040 to analyze the consequences for human-animal relationships for both wild animals and farmed domesticated animals. We discuss possible effects of an animal cell domestication process, previously described as the second domestication, on human-animal relationships. We consider its potential to reduce the impact of human demographic changes and land use on animal life, in particular whether there would be increased biomass availability and free land for wild animals. We anticipate a major reduction in animal suffering due to the decrease in the number of individual animals involved in food production, which justifies the adoption of cell-based meat from a utilitarian perspective. For the conventional animal food production that remains, further consideration is needed to understand which systems, either high or low welfare, will be retained and the impact of the innovation on the average farm animal welfare. Additionally, it seems likely that there will be less acceptance of the necessity of animal suffering in farming systems when meat production is uncoupled from animal raising and slaughter, supported by a deontological perspective of animal ethics. Consequent to this is anticipated the mitigation of relevant barriers to animal protection and to the recognition of animals as subjects by legislation. Thus, the development of the alternative meats may be related to a significant change in our relationship with non-human animals, with greater benefits than the prima facie effects on farm animals.

Leyendo a Spallanzani hoy en día / Reading Spallanzani today

Resumen Recordamos al abate Lázaro Spallanzani (1729-1799) fundamentalmente por su victoriosa contienda con Needham sobre la generación espontánea, pero fue un hombre de múltiples intereses en distintos campos de la ciencia, desde la biología a la volcanología. Se lo llamó el "biólogo de los biólogos", desarrollando una serie de investigaciones sobre la reproducción de los anfibios, en una de las cuales - "Experiencias al servicio de la historia de la generación de animales y plantas" - el lector moderno se estremece de horror ante las crueles mutilaciones que infligiera a los sapos machos tratando de interrumpir su copulación con las hembras. Él mismo las califica de "bárbaras" estas torturas, inadmisibles en un hombre que detentaba una jerarquía eclesiástica, aún en una época como la suya, en que se calificaba a los animales como "anima vili" (cosa sin valor). Mucho se ha avanzado hoy en día en resguardo de nuestros "hermanos menores", como los llamara San Francisco, pero aún falta mucho que hacer en la regulación de la experimentación científica que los utiliza.

Abstract We remember Lazaro Spallanzani (1729-1799) mainly for his controversy with Needham over spontaneous generation, but he was a man of multiple scientific activities in the fields of biology, mineralogy, physics, mathematics and… volcanology! Called "the biologist of biologists", he developed a series of investigations about reproduction of amphibian, in one of them -Experiences in service to the history of the generation of animals and plants- we have found horrific experiments with frogs, including severe and useless mutilation of males, in order to interrupt its copulation with females, acts he describes as "barbaric", and we estimate inadmissible in the ecclesiastic man he was, even in an epoch in which animals were considered "anima vili" (something without value). A brief review of the use of animals in laboratories shows significant advances in the ethical regulations for this practice, but we believe that these achievements are not enough.

Pain, sentience and animal welfare / Dor, senciência e bem-estar em animais - senciência e dor

Sentience is the ability to feel, which is observed in at least all vertebrate animals. In this context, pain is a defense mechanism. Hyperalgesia and permanent suffering may develop if pain is not treated. According to that it is important to recognize and treat pain in animals. In general, the stimuli that produce pain are similar among animal species. The animals used for food production are the ones that have the most suffering during the management for production. Most of these procedures are questionable if they are really necessary. Both prevention and treatment of pain in animals are neglected. The development of the animal welfare science improved the critical senses for the necessity of prevention and treatment of pain in animals. The consumer attention, the good animal production practices and the environmental preservation also increased the demand for the welfare of animals. The animal welfare aggregates value to the product and may improve productivity. It is a human obligation to provide conditions to animals to be submitted to pain procedures with the adequate anesthesia and analgesia. It is also necessary to reevaluate the practices that produce animal suffering.

Senciência é a capacidade de sentir, que engloba pelo menos todos os animais vertebrados. Neste contexto a dor é um mecanismo de defesa, que quando não tratada pode desencadear hiperalgesia e sofrimento permanente. Para tal é importante o reconhecimento e tratamento adequado da mesma em animais. De forma geral os estímulos que causam dor nas diferentes espécies de animais são similares e os animais de produção são os que mais sofrem dor, relacionada ao manejo para produção e aos procedimentos cruentos, muitas vezes questionáveis da real necessidade. Há uma negligência tanto para prevenção como para o tratamento da dor em animais. O avanço da ciência do bem-estar animal aguçou o senso crítico da necessidade de prevenção e tratamento da dor em animais, adicionado ao olhar atento do consumidor, às boas práticas de produção e a preservação ambiental. Desta forma, o bem-estar animal agrega valor ao produto e pode favorecer a produtividade. É dever do ser humano prover condições para que os animais não sejam submetidos a procedimentos dolorosos sem a devida anestesia e analgesia e repensar o uso de práticas que causam dor e sofrimento em animais de produção.

Pain, sentience and animal welfare / Dor, senciência e bem-estar em animais - senciência e dor

Sentience is the ability to feel, which is observed in at least all vertebrate animals. In this context, pain is a defense mechanism. Hyperalgesia and permanent suffering may develop if pain is not treated. According to that it is important to recognize and treat pain in animals. In general, the stimuli that produce pain are similar among animal species. The animals used for food production are the ones that have the most suffering during the management for production. Most of these procedures are questionable if they are really necessary. Both prevention and treatment of pain in animals are neglected. The development of the animal welfare science improved the critical senses for the necessity of prevention and treatment of pain in animals. The consumer attention, the good animal production practices and the environmental preservation also increased the demand for the welfare of animals. The animal welfare aggregates value to the product and may improve productivity. It is a human obligation to provide conditions to animals to be submitted to pain procedures with the adequate anesthesia and analgesia. It is also necessary to reevaluate the practices that produce animal suffering.

Senciência é a capacidade de sentir, que engloba pelo menos todos os animais vertebrados. Neste contexto a dor é um mecanismo de defesa, que quando não tratada pode desencadear hiperalgesia e sofrimento permanente. Para tal é importante o reconhecimento e tratamento adequado da mesma em animais. De forma geral os estímulos que causam dor nas diferentes espécies de animais são similares e os animais de produção são os que mais sofrem dor, relacionada ao manejo para produção e aos procedimentos cruentos, muitas vezes questionáveis da real necessidade. Há uma negligência tanto para prevenção como para o tratamento da dor em animais. O avanço da ciência do bem-estar animal aguçou o senso crítico da necessidade de prevenção e tratamento da dor em animais, adicionado ao olhar atento do consumidor, às boas práticas de produção e a preservação ambiental. Desta forma, o bem-estar animal agrega valor ao produto e pode favorecer a produtividade. É dever do ser humano prover condições para que os animais não sejam submetidos a procedimentos dolorosos sem a devida anestesia e analgesia e repensar o uso de práticas que causam dor e sofrimento em animais de produção.