Ecologically Unequal Exchange and Farm Animal Welfare: An Empirical Analysis Using the Voiceless Animal Cruelty Index

ABSTRACT

Ecologically unequal exchange theory explains that unequal trade arrangements between higher- and lower-income countries result in greater environmental degradation in lower-income countries. Farm animals are sometimes neglected by sociology because of their unique place between nature and society. Here, we extend ecologically unequal exchange theory to analyze trade relationships between higher- and lower-income countries and farm animal cruelty, using data from 2014. Results from regression analyses show that contrary to what we would expect based on ecologically unequal exchange theory, higher levels of exports to high-income countries from low- and middle-income countries is associated with lower overall farm animal cruelty and production of farm animal cruelty. We suggest that this may be the result of spillover effects, where the types of legislation meant to improve farm animal welfare passed in high-income countries are affecting lower-income countries, and call for more research into animal welfare, including research that examines changes over time as data become available.

KEYWORDS:

• Ecologically unequal exchange
• farm animals
• cruelty
• welfare
• trade

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. The term “cruelty” is criticized by vegan sociologists as being dismissive of animal suffering and oppression, and of masking the reality of their treatment and slaughter. Nguyen (2019) argues, “I think that our singular focus on suffering, as the result of acts of cruelty, in the ethical discussion involving other animals tends to overshadow other, equally pressing questions … ‘Cruelty’ merely implies an insensitivity to suffering leading to unnecessary or unjustified violence; the exact same outcome may be achieved by means that are ‘not cruel’ or even ‘humane’” (p. 107).

2. Like “cruelty,” the word “meat” has been criticized by vegan sociologists as being euphemistic – disguising the reality that “meat” is the flesh of dead animals, and many animal sociologists either don’t use the word or include it in quotes to draw attention to this (see for example Peggs 2012; Wrenn 2021). We acknowledge this, but in writing to a general audience we opt to use the word “meat” for the sake of conceptual clarity.

3. Battery cages are housing used to keep a large number of chickens together. “A standard size of any battery cage is approximately 61 cm wide and 51 cm deep. Normally, each cage is occupied with six hens at a time” (Sheikh 2013). Farrowing crates contain sows until their piglets are weaned. They restrict pig movement so that they cannot turn around and “have also been correlated with some pig diseases, including dystocia, agalactia, and wasting disease” (Rollin 1995:91).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Michael D. Briscoe

Michael D. Briscoe is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Colorado State University Pueblo. His research focuses on the intersections of human, animal, and environmental well-being.

Jennifer E. Givens

Jennifer E. Givens is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Utah State University. Her research examines relationships between the environment, development, well-being, and various inequalities, especially in the context of climate change.