by Brandon K. Presley
On May 11, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that many may have overlooked. It did not address abortion, sexuality and gender, gun rights, or any of the other “hot button” social issues that we are accustomed to seeing on our televisions or social media feeds; instead, this ruling deals with a law aimed at bolstering animal welfare.
In a close vote that did not fall along traditional ideological lines, the Court upheld California’s Proposition 12—a controversial citizen-initiated ballot measure that was voted into law in 2018.[1] Proposition 12 proposed several specific items relating to animal welfare, mainly working to expand the space that animals are given to live in on farms. If farms fail to comply with stipulations of Proposition 12, the meat and eggs produced by those farms cannot be sold within the state of California. Consequently, all meat and egg producers in the country wishing to do business in California must meet certain standards of living space for their animals.[2]
This case raises several legal questions that fall outside the scope of this article. However, it also prompts us to think more carefully about animal welfare. What does Scripture tell us about animal welfare and how we should treat the created order? Further, if we conclude that widespread animal abuse indeed exists on farms, what can we do to steward God’s creation better? By asking such questions, we can begin developing a robust theology of creation care that will help us respond well to the ethical questions raised by modern agriculture.
What Does Scripture Tell Us?
In Scripture, God places humanity at the pinnacle of the created order. In the creation narrative found in Genesis 1:26, Scripture says that humanity shall “have dominion” over all of creation. God reaffirms this mandate after the flood and even goes further by telling Noah and his sons, “The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you” (Genesis 9:2–3a, ESV).
These passages from Genesis teach that humans are the crown jewel of God’s creation and that humans have been charged to steward the other creatures. While our stewardship is an honor to be carried out in imitation of God, it is also a common grace from God for our physical provision. Therefore, God commands us to exercise great care in our stewardship. Pertaining to animals, this principle, which is reiterated throughout Scripture, means that we should value animal life and welfare.
In the Law, God instructs the Israelites to practice conservation of nature: “If you come across a bird’s nest in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs and the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young. You shall let the mother go, but the young you may take for yourself” (Deuteronomy 22:6–7a). Here, God tells His people that they may take the eggs or the young for themselves, but the other directive is to let the mother go.
Both John Calvin and Matthew Henry address this passage and the principles it provides. Calvin writes, “For, if there be one drop of compassion in us, it will never enter into our minds to kill an unhappy little bird. . . . God prohibited His people from savageness and cruelty.”[3] As people of God, therefore, our dominion over the animals must never be “savage” or “cruel” but full of compassion and sympathy. Along similar lines, Henry, writing on this same passage, insists that the Law “forbids” us from being cruel to the creatures. While we are given dominion, “we must not abuse them nor rule them with rigour.”[4] Thus, cruelty demonstrates a wicked heart and a corrupt soul.
Conversely, compassion towards animals is a sign of righteousness. Proverbs 12:10 states, “Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel.” This proverb means that we are to be “sympathetically aware of an animal’s condition.” Animals, as a result, should be well-fed and nourished, and we should spare them where possible from undue pain and suffering. We should be concerned with the lives of animals not only because they feel pain but also because they provide us with many of the elements we need for our own lives, including food, clothing, or any of the other numerous benefits animals provide.[5]
Further, we should care for animals because God cares for them. When speaking of how the Father loves humanity, Jesus also reminds us that He cares for the animals as well (Matthew 6:26; 10:9). Though humans place little value on sparrows, God cares for the sparrows enough to know each one and provide them with food. While animals are not created in the image of God, they do have nephesh and thus genuine significance (Genesis 1:20–21, 24, 30).[6]
For the sake of time, we will forgo examining additional passages that further affirm we are to treat animals with respect and compassion.[7] However, with these principles in mind, we will now consider how animals are often treated on industrial farms.
Animal Abuse in Industrial Factory Farming
If we return to Proposition 12, we can see the grievances that are being raised against factory farms. In all, the bill deals with three animals: calves (specifically those used for veal), sows (breeding pigs), and hens. Between these three, the treatment of sows has particularly been the cause of indignation.
In typical factory farms, sows that are gestating (roughly four months) are placed in gestation crates that are generally seven feet long by two feet wide (fourteen feet squared). For most sows these dimensions give just enough space to get in the crate but too little space even to turn around.[8] Thus, the sow can do nothing but sit and stand while facing the same direction for the entire gestation period. Once sows are close to giving birth, they are moved to farrowing crates until the piglets are weaned, and then the sows are inseminated once again and moved back to the gestation crate to repeat the process.
Gestation crates in farming are relatively new. Introduced in 1964, the original purpose of the crate was to separate aggressive, pregnant sows to prevent fighting and injuries.[9] Originally, crates were placed in sandy areas where sows could be released occasionally to roam with some freedom and engage in natural behavior. By 1969, however, farms began placing sows in the crates and leaving them there during the entire gestation period.[10] In 2012, a survey was conducted among farms that housed 1,000 or more sows, finding that 83% kept their sows in complete confinement during their entire lifespan.[11] We must then ask if this treatment is cruel and violates the principles of Scripture I have established above.
The negative impacts of gestation crates on sows have been well-documented. In frustration over their restricted movement, crated sows often thrash against the sides of the crates, harming themselves in the process, and many gnaw at the metal bars of the crates. Further studies have shown that crated sows suffer from weakened immune systems, develop pressure sores from being tightly packed against the sides of the crate, and have higher rates of lameness and mortality than those in different housing systems or larger crates.[12] Currently, several alternatives to gestation crates are available (e.g., open-pen animal management and group housing in hoop structures), all of which account for sow aggression during gestation.[13]
Based on the physical issues that accompany the use of standard gestation crates, it is apparent that they cause undue pain and stress to the animal. While I have explored only the treatment of sows, issues of animal welfare plague the industrial farming system. With these abuses towards the created order, how should Christians respond?
Response
Firstly, I do not believe Scriptural principles require us to be vegetarian or vegan. God has given us creation partly to sustain us, and, since the flood, a portion of that sustenance has included eating meat. Additionally, one does not need to be vegetarian or vegan to care about animal welfare. How then can we ensure that animals are treated according to a Christian ethic?
For some, it may be worth exploring the possibility of taking up three-to-ten acres of land and raising one’s own animals for food where you can ensure you have “regard for the life of [your] beast.” Even in most cities, it is legal to raise a few hens or rabbits.[14] However, our industrialized and urban society makes this solution challenging for many. Even so, we can take steps to ensure that animals are being cared for properly. One solution is to buy meat from local butchers and farmers. Small, sustainable farms are far more likely to ensure that animals are thriving. Another option (though slightly more expensive) would be to buy free-range meat, crate-free pork, and pasture-raised eggs from your grocery store and to educate yourself on what these terms mean and what practices the companies take in how they treat their animals. Both options lower the chances that your money is supporting those who have little regard for their animals.
In conclusion, whether with respect to gestation crates or any other technology that is employed with animal welfare, we should be vigilant to ensure that Biblical principles regarding animal welfare are being followed. And if they are not, we must be advocates to end abuses of creation.
About the Author: Brandon K. Presley and his wife, Dakota, serve as the resident directors for the men’s dorm at Welch College. Additionally, Brandon is serving as the interim pastor for Rejoice Free Will Baptist Church in Antioch, Tennessee. He holds an M.A. in Theology and Ministry from Welch College and an M.A. in History from Arizona State University. He and his wife are the proud parents to their one-year-old daughter, Mary Kathryn. Brandon enjoys teaching history, reading literature, and keeping up with American politics.
[1] The five justices voting to uphold the law were Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Amy Coney Barrett, leaving John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Jackson voting to remand the case entitled, National Pork Producers Council v. Ross.
[2] While the Supreme Court case deals with farmers in the United States challenging Proposition 12, the law itself also applies to all foreign countries. For more information on Proposition 12, see “Proposition 12,” Legislative Analyst’s Office, November 6, 2018, https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=12&year=2018.
[3] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans,trans. and ed. by John Owen (Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, n.d.), https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom05.ii.ii.v.xi.html.
[4] Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible (Complete), volume 1, (1706), https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/deuteronomy/22.html.
[5] Richard J. Clifford, Proverbs: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 131.
[6] Nephesh, in these verses, is used to describe the life of humanity as well as the life of animals. It is notably not used to describe to plant life.
[7] Several other passages deal with animal welfare to varying degrees. Exodus 23:4, Deuteronomy 25:4, and Jonah 4:11 are a few more places that deal with this issue, even if only peripherally. Regarding Jonah 4:11, see James Limburg, Jonah: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 97–98.
[8] Jeremy N. Marchant-Forde, “Sow Welfare Fact Sheet,” USDA Livestock Behavior Research Unit, 2010, https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/50201500/Sow%20Housing%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf.
[9] “Farrowing and Gestation Crates,” Osborne Livestock Equipment, April 16, 2019, https://osbornelivestockequipment.com/farrowing-gestation-crates/#:~:text=Gestation%20crates%20or%20individual%20stalls,fighting%20and%20injuring%20each%20other.
[10] John J. McGlone, “The Crate (Stall, Case, Cage, Box, etc.): Its History and Efficacy,” PowerPoint presentation for the Pork Industry Institute of Texas Tech University (Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, 2002), https://www.depts.ttu.edu/animalwelfare/research/sowhousing/documents/TheCrate.pdf.
[11] John J. McGlone, “Review: Updated scientific evidence on the welfare of gestating sows kept in different housing systems,” Professional Animal Scientist 29 (2013):189–98, https://www.depts.ttu.edu/animalwelfare/research/sowhousing/documents/Sowhousingreview2013.pdf.
[12] Numerous articles demonstrate the negative effects of gestation crates on sows, e.g., Brent F. Kim et al., “Industrial Food Animal Production in America: Examining the Impact of the Pew Commission’s Priority Recommendations,” John Hopkins Center for a Livable Future (Fall 2013), https://clf.jhsph.edu/sites/default/files/2019-05/industrial-food-animal-productionin-america.pdf; Cynthia Schuck-Paim and Wladimir J. Alonso, “Productivity of Mother Pigs is Lower, and Mortality Greater in Countries That Still Confine Them in Gestation Crates,” F1000Res, August 4, 2022, 11:564, doi: 10.12688/f1000research.122042.2, PMCID: PMC9379333, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9379333/; and Marchant-Forde, “Sow Welfare Fact Sheet,” 2010.
[13] There are numerous alternatives to gestation crates, some of which have been known and used for decades and some of which are new. “Farrowing and Gestation Crates”; “Alternatives to Sow Gestation Stalls Researched at Iowa State,” Iowa State University, April 19, 2007, https://www.cals.iastate.edu/news/2007/alternatives-sow-gestation-stalls-researched-iowa-state; “Alternative and Free Farrowing Options for Pig Farms,” Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, https://ahdb.org.uk/knowledge-library/alternative-and-free-farrowing-options-for-pig-farms.
[14] While taking up a farm may not be a possibility for many, purchasing hens and raising them for eggs is within the range of possibilities. On most housing lots, even in cities, hens can be kept under certain conditions. In urban Nashville, for example, lots of 5,009 sf (0.11 acres) are allowed to have two hens; lots between 5,010 sf and 10,236 sf (0.12–0.23 acres) are allotted up to four hens; lots larger that 10,237 sf (0.24 acres) can have up to six hens. “Domestic Hen Permit Rules and Regulations,” Metro Public Health, https://filetransfer.nashville.gov/portals/0/sitecontent/Health/PDFs/Animal/HensRulesAndRegulations.pdf.
Recent Comments