“Reasons to be an Omnivore; for you and the planet”is the title of Juan Pascual’s book. This text offers an overview of all the questions related to the “human-animal” relationship. The author, who holds a degree in veterinary medicine from the University of Zaragoza, makes a considerable effort to popularize the subject by addressing all theories, including controversial ones, but always responds with a scientific and well-sourced discourse (the work contains no fewer than 400 references!). After having presented in great detail the synergistic relationship between humans and domestic animals, he studies the ideology of animalism by analyzing the main philosophies on which it is based. Environmental, health and finally religious concerns are debated, and our questions are answered with elements that will make you want to read more.
The European Scientist: Your book aims to expose and refute the arguments of animalism. Who is it aimed at? Why is this subject so topical? How can we avoid controversy?
Juan Pascual: The book is aimed at all audiences. We all have interactions with animals, either for our food or with our pets; even without knowing it we use animal products because they are everywhere: we cannot have land fertilization and therefore plants without slurry or animal manure.
Animalism concerns society as a whole; so I would like to share another story, well researched and based on scientific data, for those who are ready to listen to another voice; I propose a vision that goes against the grain, but which underlines the fundamental benefits that animal agriculture provides us.
The subject is current because a militant minority is strongly opposed to farming and the consumption of animal products. It is not possible to escape the controversy because the activists are very active. But only objective scientific data can provide an answer.
TES. You justify the domestication of animals, by comparing it to wildlife. You speak of a synergistic process. Can you explain it to us?
J.P. : Yes, domestication was not imposed on animals. In fact, we managed to domesticate just a number of few species. Dogs – the first – followed hunters to obtain bones, remains and thus we obtained their help to hunt; they alerted us to the presence of dangers or predators nearby. The same evolution was reproduced with other animals: they learned that humans could provide protection from predators, as well as shelter from bad weather. We benefited in return from their products: meat, milk, eggs or wool. It was a win-win situation.
TES. You include a long chapter on animal welfare, a rather complex notion where everything is not black or white. How does science play an important role in this notion?
J.P. : Everyone talks about animal welfare, but it is a science that was established as an academic discipline at Cambridge Veterinary School in 1986. Like any science, it is measurable, reproducible and studied in all veterinary schools around the world.
But everyone who is not a specialist has their own opinion on what welfare is or should be. Also, the political class reacts by imposing measures based on anthropomorphic perceptions that are very far from reality. For example, sows are in cages during the 4 weeks of suckling of the little piglets. Some denounce this as a cruel measure, but they do not have all the facts. If they are not in a cage, they often crush their young by lying down. In the cage, they are forced to lie down slowly, and the piglets have time to escape. So, the welfare of farm animals is a science with complex practices, it is not all white or all black. Often, we have to find the right balance among all the variables.
TES. You study the philosophies of Tom Regan and Peter Singer. You denounce the temptation of these two ways of thinking to want to move from an anthropocentric vision to a zoocentric vision? Can you elaborate?
J.P. : Their argument is as follows: since we experiment on animals on the pretext that they are less intelligent and do not have consciousness, etc., we must also accept experimenting on humans who are devoid of consciousness; for example, those who are in a comatose state or those who have no intelligence or self-awareness.
I find this position contrary to the founding principles of humanity, because a person in a coma continues to be a father, a friend, a brother and a citizen. A person with whom I can speak even if he does not answer me. We are loved. As humans, society respects us for what we “are” regardless of our state of consciousness.
When we give the same value to human life as to animal life, we do not humanize animals, but we degrade the status of humans.
TES. The case of animal experimentation seems much more complex than that of farming. What are the reasons for this?
J.P. : All universities, all those who do research agree: for medicine to advance, the use of experimental animals is absolutely key. There is no alternative in many cases. And thanks to animal experimentation, medicine and our health continue to improve. For example, we are experimenting with transplants using animal organs, for all genetic diseases we test treatment protocols on animals and finally, surgeons are trained on animals.
TES.: You also study the arguments of those who oppose the ownership of domestic animals. Who are they?
J.P. : The most extreme in the animal rights movement consider that animal ownership is a form of slavery. This is the case of animal rights lawyer Gary Francione, who thinks that any animal ownership is a form of exploitation and abuse. We should not have dogs, cats, horses in our homes. Even the dogs that guide the visually impaired are slaves. Again, this is completely questionable because while humans benefit from the company of animals, they benefit from many advantages by living with humans (protection, food, affection, health, etc.)
TES.: The IPCC report estimates emissions related to livestock farming at 14% of total anthropogenic emissions. You put this figure into perspective, especially since the situation can be improved. Finally, you show that the alternative solutions proposed would not necessarily be more effective.
J.P. : The latest IPCC data says 12%. We must try to reduce emissions. But the global problem is mainly due to fossil fuels, which have grown exponentially to reach 80% of emissions, while agricultural emissions have remained stable. Indeed, we forget that cows were there before the combustion engine; so counting and comparing the two sources of emissions from zero does not make any sense.
There is a very interesting study that shows that livestock emissions in Germany today are lower than they were at the end of the 19th century. And the reduction targets for 2050 are the same for livestock as for other industries.
It is also important to consider that methane (the greenhouse gas emitted by ruminants) has a much shorter lifespan than CO2. Unfortunately, it is accounted for in the same way. A clarification that will be reestablished in the future, I think.
TES.: You describe the virtuous cycle in which livestock farming participates. According to you, the consequences for the environment would be catastrophic if this were to be interrupted.
J.P. : Absolutely. Livestock recycles millions of tons of plant by-products and without this support, these products would be highly detrimental for the environment. I will give you one example of which there are many. In France, 25 million hectoliters of beer are produced each year. Each hectoliter requires 20 kg of barley. This generates 500,000 tons of residues from malted barley, or about 19,000 trucks that would represent a line of 230 km, or the distance from Paris to Lille. What should be done with these residues? We can throw them in a landfill where they will rot, emit GHGs, etc. or we can give them as feed to cows who will transform them into milk and meat. As you know, we chose the second alternative. Yes, livestock allows us to create a virtuous cycle and to complete the biological cycles of carbon and nitrogen.
TES.: You also mention human health. Diets without animal products are possible, you say, but not without consequences for the body. Can you summarize the main points for us?
J.P. : It is possible to follow diets without animal products, but it is very difficult. In France – according to a survey by the Ministry of Agriculture – there are only 0.2% vegans, and it has been shown that 84% leave the vegan diet after 2 years. A majority cite the deterioration of health as the main reason for returning to an omnivorous diet. Our digestive system has evolved over centuries and has adapted to digest and metabolize animal products. We have difficulty assimilating the iron contained in plants: to obtain an equivalent quantity of iron found in 6 grams of liver, we need 400 g of spinach. In Europe, 14% of young women suffer from anemia due to iron deficiency because they do not eat enough meat. This is one example, there are other common deficiencies such as vitamin B12, calcium, vitamin A or D, amino acids. There are several medical societies that strongly oppose these vegan diets, especially for children, adolescents, pregnant women, and the elderly.
This post is also available in: FR (FR)
Leave a Reply