Have Viva! sold out?

Vegetarian International Voice for Animals is the largest and richest animal advocacy group in the U.K. and Europe. With an often strong media presence, they represent the interests of animals to the public. With all the donations helping to fund various campaigns and a team of paid staff, what are Viva! actually achieving for animal rights?

Viva’s Single Issue Campaigns

When I first became aware of Viva! nearly 10 years ago, I got involved in supporting their various single issue campaigns. A decade later, I am sad to see that some of them appear to still be going strong without having made significant progress. Over the last decade I have come to realise there are serious problems with the use of single issue campaigns that can help to explain why this is.

Let’s look at a few examples:

Kangaroo Leather

Every year millions of wild kangaroos are shot in Australia, largely to supply meat and leather. Viva! say that one of the biggest (UK) demands for which comes from well-known brands of sports gear suppliers, chiefly for the manufacture of football boots. Viva!’s plea to the public was to therefore boycott Adidas, Puma and Nike (and any other supplier using it) until they stopped their use of kangaroo leather. Much like how the anti-fur campaigns have operated for the past 30 years or so. The kangaroo campaign has in fact been running since 1997(1).

Badger Cull

Badgers are being blamed for the spread of Bovine TB in Britain. A 10-year scientific study refutes this claim(2), citing the cull as an ineffective method of controlling the spread of the disease. The real culprit is thought to be poor practices in “livestock” management. Farmers and DEFRA are set on a cull. There are greater political and economic motivations for them to go ahead with it.

The focus of Viva!’s campaign in opposition to this is a boycott of dairy produced in England and Wales…hence implicitly a temporary one until the cull is stopped(3).

Polish Horse Export

Every year thousands of horses are exported from Poland to Italy for meat. The focus of this campaign is the suffering the horses endure on a gruelling five-day journey where they are severely neglected and abused(4).

The Problems with these Single Issue Campaigns

First and foremost, in each campaign Viva! is highlighting the plight of one species of animal. In a society where the use of animals is accepted and considered normal, for any animal advocacy group to single out just one, immediately suggests that this particular use is somehow morally different than all other uses. That somehow this use is unacceptable, but the others are fine—or at least better. This has the effect of normalising all other uses in the eyes of the public. It suggests that some species of animals are okay to use, but some are “special” and deserve to be protected. This is actually speciesism (the belief that one species is morally superior to another), the very thing that we need to oppose if we are to achieve rights for animals. It’s helping to create moral inconsistency in our view of animals instead of challenging it.

In the case of kangaroo leather: Viva! state it is the:

“largest wildlife massacre on the planet”.

“Viva! is calling for an international boycott of all Adidas products. We must make Adidas realise that people will not tolerate our planet’s wildlife being slaughtered for unnecessary, luxury items such as football boots.”

The campaign ignores the fact that billions of other land animals across the globe are massacred for meat, leather, dairy, eggs, wool, fur, silk etc.— all of which are also unnecessary, luxury items. Thus Viva! imply the problem is that we already get such things from animals we have domesticated for this purpose, so why kill wild animals on top of this? The inherent message says our normal use of animals (especially for their skins) is more acceptable, and thus more desirable.

The public will assume that to wear the skin of kangaroos is horrid, but to wear the skin of cows is acceptable. Encouraging them to boycott Adidas (or whomever) for this doesn’t make sense as they are not opposing animal exploitation; they will simply buy a different kind of leather boot elsewhere. This does nothing to challenge the property status of animals or promote their rights.

In the case of the badger cull: Viva! suggest that you boycott the dairy industry (presumably until the badger cull is refuted):

“Boycott English and Welsh dairy products and send the Governments and the dairy industry a clear message that you do not support the annihilation of British wildlife!”

There is a giant elephant in the room being ignored…or should that be cow? Why is an animal advocacy group telling us to boycott British dairy (temporarily no less) for the sake of badgers? The campaign completely overlooks the fact that cows are needlessly exploited and killed in order to provide dairy products we don’t need…in their billions. Again, they’re suggesting (quite contrary to other campaigns on dairy itself) that to use cows is fine, but to kill badgers is wrong! This is creating a great deal of moral confusion. If the dairy industry didn’t exist then the badgers wouldn’t be culled, if we didn’t exploit animals the dairy industry wouldn’t exist, if we didn’t engage in speciesism then animal exploitation wouldn’t exist. Here Viva! are only trimming a twig from the branch of the problem instead of hacking at the root cause: speciesism(5). They are just not being clear or honest with the public. Where saving cows is actually mentioned it appears to be an afterthought, cited as merely a “bonus”.

Not surprisingly, Viva!’s campaign to prevent the badger cull through the boycott of dairy products appears to have failed. Trial culls are due to go ahead in selected areas of the UK in 2012. Viva! are still calling for a dairy boycott. I can’t help but think the cause for animals of all species would have benefited more, had the resources spent on this campaign been put into vegan education. Vegans boycott all kinds of exploitation including the dairy industry, not just a single issue.

In the case of polish horse export: Again, right away Viva! are singling out the transport and slaughter of horses for meat, ignoring the tens of billions of other animals in the meat/dairy/egg/wool/leather industries who experience this every year. This helps reinforce the speciesist notion that it’s okay to do this to cows/pigs/chickens/sheep etc, but wrong to do so to horses, who are also often loved akin to the context of a pet species—elevated to a status deserving of special treatment. It seems like an emotive ploy.

The focus of this campaign is again on the cruelty of the situation; Viva! quote it as: “one of the cruellest and least regulated aspects of Europe’s live animal trade”. Whenever “cruelty” or “treatment” is highlighted, the impression the public get is that the moral problem is how we use the animals, not that we use them at all, inferring that there is an acceptable way to do so, and the practices merely need to be reformed. This helps to perpetuate the animal welfare myth(6) and directly conflicts with the notion of animal rights.

Why do Viva! use single issue campaigns?

The big animal groups claim that they use single issue campaigns as a “hook” in order to attract public interest, with the hope that those who show support will go on to become vegan. While this can potentially (though not necessarily) work on a certain type of person (who is already very sympathetic towards animals), the conflicting message presented by these campaigns fails to motivate most people to look beyond this, and in fact only serves to confuse the issue further. Indeed, it seems single issue campaigns cause more harm than good (as noted in the early article linked by Cudahy and Flinn).

By highlighting uses that the vast majority of the general public don’t participate in to begin with (much like The League Against Cruel Sports do), Viva! can rally sympathy and donations without asking them to look at their own part in the exploitation of animals and change their behaviour. The campaigns create a “bad guy”, an easy target to demonise as responsible for “unnecessary” or “extreme” cruelty (e.g in religious slaughter: Muslims and Jews; in foie gras: The upper class; in horse meat export: The Polish; in the badger cull: The farmers). There is already discrimination against race, religion and class in this country. Such campaigns are further supporting this and indeed are profiting from it(7).

At the very least it is misleading. In these instances Viva! suggest that the problems are these “extreme” uses of animals (perpetrated by particular groups of people), and that the “normal” uses of animals that the vast majority of us participate in everyday are just fine—or at least much better. The public can feel good by being disgusted, donating and absolving themselves of any responsibility. Viva! avoid challenging or placing any blame on the activities of the general public in order to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. This secures them a large donor base.

How on earth is this helpful in challenging the property paradigm of animals? In short, it isn’t. In fact, these methods actually help manufacture consent for exploitation(8).

These campaigns exist as a fund-raising tool. Viva!, like all large non-profit animal organisations, are a business. They must provide a continuous flow of “products” to sell to their “customers”. The product is single issue campaigns that they claim “victories” for. With every claim of victory they market themselves as a successful entity that the supporters (the customers) should continue to fund. These counter-productive ‘products’ will always be necessary as an economic matter so long as veganism is confined to a minority view. Yet it will always be a minority view while the biggest animal groups push these counter-productive methods instead of promoting veganism. It’s a vicious circle which requires our attention.

Let’s look at a few of these “victories” in more detail–are they victories for the animals?

The Nocton Mega Dairy

Viva! and other groups spent a great deal of time and money on publicising and rallying support in opposition to the plans of a large dairy factory farm. They again highlighted why this animal use should be considered particularly bad as “an animal welfare disaster”, citing in their official objection letter: “These animals will be removed from their natural environment, denied their natural food and will be unable to exhibit natural behaviour which are integral to good welfare.” and “The idea that cows will now join the ranks of the factory farmed animals is abhorrent”, suggesting that other forms of dairy production, where these welfare considerations are observed, are acceptable. Viva! are ignoring the injustice of exploitation, and again indicating the problem is treatment or the numbers of animals used.

The plans for the mega-dairy were rejected in 2011 on environmental grounds. Animal welfare (let alone animal rights) concerns had nothing to do with it. There is nothing that violates current laws about animal use in the plans, which will no doubt be amended and re-launched at a later date. Viva! claimed this as a proud victory…one which they had nothing to do with in reality. The council bases their decision on legal, environmental grounds, not public animal welfare opposition, and would have rejected these plans without the involvement of Viva!

“Nocton Dairies denied they were pulling out because of public disapproval and insisted the unit was the best hope for British dairy farming, which faces competition from ‘mega dairy’ units abroad.”(9)

Even if Viva! were successful in achieving a ban on factory farming in the UK, if they have not persuaded the public that veganism is necessary as a moral matter, the public will continue to consume animal products from alternative sources which, if not produced in the UK, can simply be imported. As this quote about Nocton shows. The reason there are plans for such dairies in the UK is because the demand is there. Whether it is met by more, smaller farms in the UK, or fewer, bigger farms abroad, is largely irrelevant for the cows who suffer horrendously in each.

Kangaroo Leather

After 10+ years the focus has switched from Adidas to Nike, Puma and Umbro (other companies that use kangaroo skin). Which identifies a key problem of targeting those who supply the demand. Even if you stop one company, shut down a lab or slaughterhouse, as long as the demand from the public for these products still exists, another company will fill in the gap in the market—whether it be for the same animal product, or a different one. If the general public are comfortable with eating, wearing and otherwise using animals, why would they see sense in opposing one form of leather in favour of another? That is, if they’re already wearing dead cows, what difference does it make if they choose to wear dead kangaroos? It can be rationalised away in their minds which makes this type of campaign (much like the anti-fur one) virtually futile.

Nike and Adidas have announced that they will consider “phasing out” kangaroo leather (with no specification as to the exact amount of time this will take). No doubt they will simply use leather from another animal instead, like in many of their other products. Viva! claim this as a “victory” for animals…and it might have been one if cows weren’t animals.

And whilst Viva! (among others) have successfully dissuaded British supermarkets from selling kangaroo meat, the Australian producers are simply seeking markets elsewhere:

“The Australian Government failed to persuade the British public to support its massacre of kangaroos for meat and so is actively turning to other markets – eg Asia, the USA, Bulgaria, Czech Republic and EU countries such as Germany, France, Belgium and Holland.”(10)

Kangaroo meat is still being used in pet food in various countries. So, are any fewer kangaroos being killed? While some may say this is perhaps a good first step for kangaroos, what of all the other animals being massacred for human consumption? Wouldn’t it be logical to appeal to the public to go vegan as a matter of justice, rather than simply stop eating/wearing one kind of animal at a time? What if kangaroos were domesticated and raised for meat on farms to be slaughtered as cows/pigs/chickens, etc. are? The emphasis on this campaign is on the cruelty of the method of killing, yet again missing the point—almost begging people to create a difference between ‘normal’ animal use and this one.

And do Viva! honestly think that the kangaroo, which would have been eaten on the nation’s plates, is being replaced by vegetables? People see meat as meat. They are unlikely to turn to veganism simply because Kangaroo meat (something most have never eaten anyway) is not available.

Foie-Gras

Viva! have pressured several establishments and a major cruise company into removing foie-gras, made from force-fed ducks, “one of Britain’s favourite birds” (do chickens deserve to die for being less favoured, then?) and geese from their menus. However, foie-gras importation has not been banned and the demand for it is simply being fulfilled elsewhere. In fact there have been reports that some of the establishments that removed it from their menus are now serving it once more. Harrods and various upmarket restaurants continue to stock it.

A major flaw of this campaign is that again it focuses on the cruelty of the production, rather than providing rational grounds for abolishing exploitation, thus, again suggesting that there is an acceptable way to do it. We will simply see a trend for “humane foie-gras”, as we can see in the following article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6301715.stm

This campaign fails because as a rational matter it doesn’t make sense to boycott just one animal use, but continue to participate in all others. People can see that. While foie-gras is horrendously cruel and unjust, so is killing any animal to eat, wear, experiment on, etc., when we have no need or morally sound justification to do so. Viva! are failing to communicate this message with their campaigns.

Viva! have not mentioned whether the companies they have dissuaded from stocking foie-gras will be providing vegan options—the only actual “cruelty-free” food available. This would have been a good opportunity to highlight the need to do so, in turn making it easier for the general public to live vegan.

This campaign, like so many others, hasn’t lessened the number of animals being exploited even in this one industry where it is focused.

Polish Horse Export

Thanks to high profile media campaigns, Viva! report the number of horses exported from Poland to Italy for meat has dropped from 100,000 to 30,000 per annum in the past 10 years. On the surface this seems great. One wonders though, is the demand for horse meat in Italy still just as high? If so, the demand will simply be fulfilled by someone else (perhaps more horses from Italy will be eaten instead). If the actual demand for horse meat has dropped, it is likely to have been replaced by a demand for some other kind of meat, flesh from animals that this campaign implies are “normal” to eat.

Viva states “Shockingly, recent investigations have discovered that some Italian salamis for sale in British delicatessens and supermarkets contain horsemeat.” Wait…you mean there’s meat in salami?! What’s the moral difference between whichever species of animal is being killed for it? Why are we not as horrified by salami containing the body parts of a pig? Because campaigns like this make eating pigs appear normal and acceptable. This only reinforces the engrained speciesist behaviour of compartmentalising different species of animals(11).

In reality, has exploitation of animals been at all reduced? Probably not. Are we any closer to animal rights from these campaigns? Definitely not. This is one of the problems with singling out one use of one species rather than promoting unequivocal veganism. It really misses the point. Are you assured by these “victories” that it’s a good idea to give Viva! money? Many people are, and that’s the real benefit of such campaigns. It allows people to continue to indulge in the more “normal” animal uses they enjoy.

Sexist Tactics

Are Viva! jumping on the bandwagon of engaging in sexist and antagonistic tactics in their activism? PETA, the world’s richest animal advocacy organisation with millions in their wallet, are famous for using controversial sexist campaigns such as “I’d rather go naked than wear fur”. These campaigns not only serve to reinforce the perception of women as sex objects within a patriarchal society, but they highly trivialise a serious issue of injustice— serving as an embarrassment to the public image of “animal rights”. We would not expect to see human rights campaigns “sexed up” in order to gain attention or solicit donations. It is a worrying development to see Viva! engage in this.

Viva! have collaborated with PETA to produce the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1ESDlk1vas

and have also produced their own very PETA-looking poster:
http://www.viva.org.uk/celebs/images/viva-sarah-jane.jpg

Presenting women naked or provocatively dressed in vulnerable positions/situations only serves to objectify them as nothing more than “a piece of meat” to be used for pleasure or resources by men, undervaluing their person-hood. How is this going to highlight the problem with objectifying animals in this way?! It’s making the domination and consumption of vulnerable persons look sexy, in effect, eroticising violence.

The video depicting scenes of violence towards animals in the exploitation industries is accompanied by a catchy song—one which serves to blame or vilify either the perpetrators of this violence or perhaps the public for consuming the finished products. Perhaps both. The message is not clear. Either way this approach is problematic. Firstly to vilify the industrial producers is inaccurate when they are engaging in these activities in order to fulfil public demand, rather than out of “evilness”. To portray them like that potentially encourages violence against them, when it is not they who are responsible for animal exploitation. Such potential acts of violence help make “animal rights activists” appear irrational, perhaps criminally insane, thus again preventing the public from taking the issues seriously. The problem here is violence, it cannot be solved with the application of further violence.

Secondly, to inadvertently or directly place blame on the public in this manner is only going to antagonise them rather than to educate them and get them to think critically about the situation. I highly doubt either sexual arousal or being antagonised is going to result in someone going vegan.

Thirdly the images shown yet again infer that the issue is treatment, with public comments on the YouTube page in response to these being along the lines of “I will be sure to buy humane meat”.

The video ends, not with a plea to go vegan, but with a “please help end the suffering, please send your donations to PETA and VIVA!”… Which will continue to fund counter-productive campaigns. We are presented with the notion that all one need to do to be an “animal rights activist” is to make a donation, buy a mug or t-shirt with slogans like “no animals in my tummy”, or “bollocks to meat”—which, like many of Viva!’s campaigns, contain emotive and provocative statements with no rational arguments of substance for animal rights.

Essentially the message to the public is yet again one of neutralising one’s guilt through a donation, rather than making important and necessary changes for animals.

The appeal of continued indulgence in pleasurable habits rather than recognising moral problems in using sentient beings again ensures the large organisations avoid alienating anyone and acquire the greatest number of donors as possible. It would seem capital gain takes precedence over useful advocacy.

Glorifying Vegetarianism

Perhaps most worryingly of all Viva! highly glorify vegetarianism, stating that it is “the most effective single thing you can do”(12). Misleading and inaccurate. Meat consumption is morally no different than participating in any other form of animal exploitation. In fact, celebrity vegetarian supporter Sir Paul McCartney and family have just released a cookbook promoting “Meat Free Mondays”—from an animal rights perspective, a speciesist and ridiculous campaign asking one to engage in horrific injustice just a little bit less. Or indeed, just a little bit less. Or indeed, just exchange one form of exploitation (meat) for another (eggs, dairy).

Viva! make veganism appear to be merely an optional extra step one can take, instead of a moral obligation to animals if one really takes their lives and interests seriously. Helping perpetuate the idea that it is difficult or “extreme”. Moreover their entire message seems to be one of simply “reducing suffering” instead of highlighting the injustice of using non-human persons as our resources, simply for pleasure, amusement or convenience. This is not promoting interests.

It is apparent one of the key problems within the animal rights movement is a lack of a clear moral baseline of veganism(13). In order to challenge the property status of animals, we must oppose all forms of animal exploitation. As a practical matter it simply cannot happen without this. One cannot advocate for women’s rights while beating one’s wife. So too one cannot advocate for animal rights while continuing to participate in, or promote, their exploitation (e.g. vegetarianism). Morally speaking, it is clear we need to create a cultural shift away from speciesism and towards seeing non-human animals as persons with inherent moral value. This requires education and the creation of more vegans, which can only happen with a clear vegan message—not with confusing speciesist campaigns. Animals should not be exploited because they have an interest in not being so! We don’t need huge corporations to say this for us. We don’t need to give them our money. We just need to get out there and spread the message in any way we can through creative, non-violent vegan education.

While we continue to hope that Viva! and other animal organisations listen to our concerns and take them on board, we are under no illusion that they will ever change. They have a vested interest in continuing to operate as they do. It seems they have become untouchable money-spinning corporations trying to dominate the animal rights movement in order to secure more supporters (and therefore more money). It appears to many that they have sold out the animals for pieces of silver, and unsurprisingly as the experience of Vegan Outreach Lincoln and East Midlands (page 41) shows, Viva! themselves are becoming gradually more hostile to decent vegan education when it doesn’t make money for Viva!.

(Article originally printed in issue 3 of The Abolitionist: http://www.theabolitionist.info/article/have-viva-sold-out/)

References:

1 http://www.savethekangaroo.com

2 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/11/badger-culling-ineffective-krebs

3 http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/badgers/index.php

4 http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/horses/index.htm

5 See “Single Issue Campaigns: Pruning Exploitation” by

Angel Flinn & Dan Cudahy http://www.theabolitionist.info/2011/issue2_links/single_issue_campaigns.pdf.

6 See Francione’s The Four Problems of Animal Welfare In A Nutshell: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/the-four-problems-of-animal-welfare-in-a-nutshell/

7 Francione has noted in particular where Viva! have jumped on the bandwagon of Islamaphobia, rather than taking the opportunity to promote veganism: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-lost-opportunity/

8 As Rob Johnson explains in the latter stages of his essay here: http://animalrightsuk.blogspot.com/2011/10/role-of-welfarism-and-new-welfarism-in.html

9 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8328927/Plans-for-mega-dairy-scrapped-amid-fears-for-the-environment.html

10 http://www.savethekangaroo.com/resources/KangarooReport.shtml.

11 As Dan Cudahy notes here: http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2010/02/single-issue-campaigns-speciesism-and.html

12 http://www.viva.org.uk/goingveggie/index.php

13 As also noted by Francione: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/the-paradigm-shift-requires-clarity-about-the-moral-baseline-veganism/