Are Organically Farmed Animals Already Living a Net-Positive Life?
This article aims to stimulate discussion and does not necessarily represent a definitive stance.
In discussions surrounding animal welfare I feel there is an implicit assumption that the lives of farmed animals are always net-negative—that is, the suffering they endure outweighs any positive experiences. This assumption often underpins arguments for reducing or eliminating animal product consumption. However, could it be that some farmed animals, particularly those raised under organic standards, are already experiencing net-positive lives?
The question is not merely theoretical; it has practical implications for ethical consumer choices and EA strategies. If organically farmed animals have lives worth living, this might reshape how we approach animal welfare and advocacy.
The bar to cross: Wild Animal Lives?
Wild animals often face harsh conditions: predation, disease, starvation, and environmental stresses are commonplace. Yet they also have a lot of positive periods in their lifes which could balance out net-positive as argued in a recent 80k podcast with Peter Godfrey-Smith. In contrast, organically farmed animals benefit from human care, regular feeding, protection from predators, and were to some extend selected to tolerate living in captivity. If the quality of life for of organically raised animals surpasses that of wild animals, there’s a compelling argument that their lives could be net-positive.
But what does an organic label guarantee, and how does it improve animal welfare compared to conventional farming? Let’s delve into a high-level contrasting of farmed animals and examine how organic practices address welfare issues. I am taking 80.000 hours recent updated article on the treatment of farmed animals as a starting point. As a comparison let’s take the Naturland standard (overview, detail) - a German certification that goes beyond the EU organic certification.
1. Chickens Farmed for Eggs
Conventional Practices:
Caging Systems: Battery cages restrict movement, preventing natural behaviors.
Beak Trimming: Often performed to reduce pecking in crowded conditions.
High Stocking Densities: Leads to stress and increased disease susceptibility.
Organic Practices of the Naturland Certification:
Free-Range Access: Hens have outdoor access, allowing for natural behaviors like foraging and dust bathing. Outdoor access is mandatory at all times and only the space used by the hens is counted.
Prohibition of Beak Trimming: Encourages better management practices to reduce harmful pecking.
Space Requirements: Lower stocking densities reduce stress and aggression.
2. Chickens Farmed for Meat
Conventional Practices:
Rapid Growth Breeds: Selected for fast weight gain, leading to health issues like heart problems and skeletal defects.
High Stocking Densities: Limited space hinders movement, can lead to burns and heat stress, and increases disease risk.
Indoor Confinement: Lack of environmental enrichment and natural light.
Slaughter Stress: Stress from transport, slaughter preparation.
No or Inconsistent Stunning: Not all countries enforce stunning before slaughter.
Organic Practices of the Naturland Certification:
Slower-Growing Breeds: Reduces health complications associated with rapid growth.
Lower Stocking Densities: 280 broilers/ha (half of “regular” EU organic).
Outdoor Access: Mandatory at all times.
Reduced Slaughter Stress: Detailed regulations on transport.
Stunning: Detailed regulations on stunning.
3. Pigs Farmed for Meat
Conventional Practices:
High Density: Resulting in heat stress.
Confinement in Gestation Crates: Limits movement for sows during pregnancy.
Tail Docking, Teeth Clipping: Performed to prevent injuries in crowded environments.
Lack of Environmental Enrichment: Leads to boredom and stress-related behaviors.
Organic Practices of the Naturland Certification:
Significantly Lower Density: No heat stress.
Prohibition of Crates: Sows are free to move and exhibit maternal behaviors.
Ban on Routine Mutilations: Emphasizes better living conditions to prevent harmful behaviors.
Outdoor Access: Pigs can root and forage, satisfying natural instincts. Nose rings are prohibited.
4. Dairy Cows
Conventional Practices:
High Milk Yields: Intensive breeding leads to health issues like mastitis and lameness.
Limited Grazing: Many cows are kept indoors, reducing movement.
Painful Horn Removal: Often a painful process without anesthetics.
Early Separation: Calves are separated from mothers shortly after birth.
Organic Practices of the Naturland Certification:
Lower Milk Yields: Emphasis on animal health over productivity.
Mandatory Grazing Periods: Cows spend significant time outdoors on pasture.
Limited Horn Removal: Permitted in some cases with anesthetics.
Calf Management: Practices aim to reduce stress from separation, such as keeping calves in groups.
5. Cattle Farmed for Meat
Conventional Practices:
Feedlots: High-density feeding operations with limited space.
Growth Promoters: Use of hormones and antibiotics to accelerate growth.
Transportation Stress: Long journeys to slaughterhouses.
Organic Practices Under the Naturland Certification:
Pasture-Based Systems: Cattle graze freely, exhibiting natural behaviors.
Prohibition of Growth Promoters: Reduces health risks associated with rapid growth.
Stress Reduction Measures: Improved handling and shorter transport distances.
Should We Promote an Organic Diet?
Given the comparisons above it seems to me there is a good chance that animals raised under the Naturland certification live a net-positive life. However, within animal advocacy circles, being vegan seems to be the morally best thing to do.
If we assume that organically farmed animals have net-positive lives, one could argue that eating animal products is actually the morally right thing to do. Taken to the extreme, one could even argue that from a population ethics perspective, there is a moral obligation to eat more animal products to support more net-positive lives. From an advocacy perspective it might also be much easier to advocate for a lifestyle change to an organic diet than to a fully vegan one. I don’t have the answer, curious about your thoughts!
Some Open Questions
How do we rigorously assess the quality of life of organically farmed animals?
What are the long-term implications of promoting organic animal farming on a global scale?
Would a promotion of organic diets result in more or less consumption of regular animal products?
This is an interesting and important post.
I don’t know the answer to the question you pose about whether, on average, animals used for organic food production have net positive lives. I’m thinking there’s probably a lot of variation based on animal species, what product the animal is being used for, and how well-run the organic operation is. All that makes it harder for me to try to compute an average in my brain.
But I have a question and a thought.
The question: I’m wondering why you chose to explore organic in this post, as opposed to other food labels that are more exclusively focused on animal welfare. Organic seems to me like it introduces some distracting elements. Because my understanding is that a lot of the organic requirements are aimed at protecting consumer health, the environment, and naturalness. But there are other food labels that are more exclusively aimed at protecting animal welfare, like the various tiers of Global Animal Partnership labels. That said, I’m imagining you may have a specific reason in mind for focusing on organic.
The thought: Legal Impact for Chickens is suing Alexandre Family Farm, which advertises its products as certified organic, for starving cattle; pouring salt into animals’ eyes; dragging disabled cows across concrete; leaving calves to die while isolated in small, filthy, individual hutches; and more. I would not want to be one of those cows. That said, others in the organic farming community, like the Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance and the Regenerative Organic Alliance, have come out to condemn Alexandre. And some of Alexandre’s cruel practices explicitly violate organic rules. So it’s possible that most animals used for organic agriculture do have net positive lives.
I’m curious to hear other peoples’ thoughts.
Executive summary: Organically farmed animals may already be living net-positive lives compared to wild animals, which could have significant implications for animal welfare advocacy and ethical consumer choices.
Key points:
Organic farming practices (e.g. Naturland certification) significantly improve animal welfare compared to conventional farming.
Improvements include free-range access, lower stocking densities, prohibition of mutilations, and better living conditions.
If organic farm animals have net-positive lives, it may be ethically justifiable or even obligatory to consume organic animal products.
Promoting organic diets could be an easier advocacy approach than promoting veganism.
Open questions remain about rigorously assessing animal quality of life and the global implications of promoting organic farming.
Uncertainty exists about whether promoting organic diets would increase or decrease consumption of conventional animal products.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.