On October 4, The duty published the Montreal Declaration on Animal Exploitation, a manifesto signed by more than 450 researchers in moral and political philosophy from several continents, as well as an article by Catherine Paré, “Saving animals, at all costs”, a closer look review on the same subject.
I am a veterinarian and ethicist. Interested in the health and well-being of both humans and animals, I have worked in diverse environments. I was also president of the Order of Veterinary Physicians of Quebec and advanced its position in animal welfare.
As we mark this week the world day of the One Health approach (which assumes that human health and animal health are interdependent and linked to the health of the ecosystems in which they exist), it seems to me that it is a great opportunity to respond to the Declaration.
I collaborate, in my work, with professionals and researchers in the epidemiology of zoonoses, these diseases transmissible between animals and humans, and vice versa. Some have led global health projects and worked collaboratively with Indigenous communities. Among other things, their work is essential for the production of healthy and safe food. These researchers adopt a “One Health” approach; it takes into account the social and physical environment, plants, animal and human health. Our world being complex, a more global approach allows a better understanding of the issues and, consequently, to provide appropriate solutions.
The authors of the Declaration call on our legislators to prohibit the practices they oppose, such as all forms of farming, fishing and hunting, for reasons of interspecies justice. This is an abolitionist position. When a group of philosophers ask legislators to ban, they are asking that their moral vision be imposed on others.
The signatories’ request results from a restrictive ethical analysis that does not take into account the impact on humans and communities, and even on the animals themselves, of the solutions they propose.
Animal wellbeing
When it comes to relationships with animals, Quebec society is changing rapidly. We are for the elimination of cruelty to animals and the improvement of their living conditions, both companion and production animals as well as those used in research. Our laws and codes of practice are constantly evolving, phasing out practices that cause suffering and promoting better prevention of disease and injury. Research on animals is marked out by standards, which are also evolving.
It is desirable that Quebec society continue its efforts to improve the living conditions of animals based on common values and objective data.
Cultures, traditions and nutritional needs
The signatories, by asking that breeding, hunting and fishing be prohibited, deny the right to other people and groups the right to have a different vision of respect for nature and animals. However, the consumption of animal products is part of the traditions of our communities, aboriginals and others.
Plant-based proteins can meet a large part of our needs. Eating habits in industrialized countries are changing in this direction. However, since humans are fundamentally omnivorous, diets free of any animal product are difficult to balance and often require the taking of supplements. Only wealthy people can do it.
A vegan diet is not necessarily greener. It is to be hoped that our new habits will really make it possible to reduce our ecological footprint, among other things through less waste. Many are working to make our agriculture sustainable.
The consequences of an abolition of farming or fishing on communities must be taken into account. It would deprive entire populations of food security.
Ethics or law?
All citizens are entitled to their opinions and can express their views on what “ethical” relations with animals would be like. The problem arises when some fail to consider the consequences of their positions and, moreover, when they want to impose their morality on others.
The desire of abolitionist and antispeciesist signatories to impose their vision on others through legislation has a harmful effect on dialogue and public debate.
A necessary dialogue
Any societal debate on questions as fundamental as our diet and our relationship with other animals and ecosystems must include, in addition to philosophers, all groups of the population: vegetarians and omnivores, people from various communities and traditions, nutritionists, doctors, animal welfare experts, fishermen, agricultural producers, ecologists, biologists, veterinarians, epidemiologists and public health experts, etc.
This diversity of points of view would allow a real dialogue from which would emerge a more systemic vision nourished by ethical principles and an analysis of the consequences of the proposed solutions.