Governments should require that meat packaging include ethical warning labels

Note:
This post will also soon be posted on my blog (http://www.gotejas.com...). Here’s confirmation that this is actually me (http://gotejas.com...). I have received permission from this site’s moderator to do so.
What is my advocacy?
I argue that the government should require the inclusion of ethical warning labels labels on any meat packaging, as well as on dairy and eggs. These would describe the experiences undergone by the animals from whom the food products were derived throughout the manufacturing process. Furthermore, these labels will be required to include images that vividly and accurately reflect the experiences of the animals throughout the manufacturing process.
The precedent for these kinds of labels already exists, with, for instance, warning labels on cigarette packaging and Fair Trade labels.
Why is this plan beneficial?
(1) Mandating ethical warning labels would protect the freedom of choice of consumers
A. Information is a necessary precondition for consumers to make free choices
Consumers should have the information about whether consumption of a particular product would offend their personal values. That’s because the free choice of consumers relies on them having full information about the product they’re buying.
Philosopher Thomas Wells explains that “if we are not sufficiently informed about both the negative and positive implications of the options we are presented with, we won't be able to relate those options to our own values and interests.” [1] Countries across the world recognize this principle through other labeling laws, that compel manufacturers to present information such as expiration dates, information about nutritional values on packaged food, or whether particular food is kosher or halal.
B. Ethical warning labels on meat packaging give consumers this information
Lots of people hold the value that, while meat consumption is okay, we ought not consume meat obtained in particularly unethical ways – some people, for instance, wouldn’t consume chicken if that chicken’s beak was cut off and the chickens from the farm in question were crammed together in a cage; others would refuse factory farmed meat in general.
However, these consumers don’t get information about the specific abuses that animals go through throughout the manufacturing process; at best, in the status quo, they get the information that they’re consuming a product that has meat in it. An ethical warning label would give them that information about the specific harm faced by the animals and allow them to make decisions for themselves, with full information about the fulfillment of their personal values.
(2) Mandating ethical warning labels would reduce animal suffering
A. Ethical warning labels would sensitize people to animal abuse
Two reasons. First, many people get information about animal abuse for the first time. Two-thirds of people are unaware that killing all male chicks on egg farms is standard practice. 33% of adults don’t know dairy cows are slaughtered when milk yield drops. 88% of people don’t know that most pigs are killed around fourteen years before their typical lifespan ends. [2] My plan would ensure that, every time someone walked into a supermarket and picked up some eggs, they’d see the information of the number of chicks killed in that farm and the images of hens packed into cages with their beaks cut off; it would also incentivize them to learn more about the manufacturing process. The presence of the plan, thus, creates significantly more discussion about issues regarding animal welfare in the meat industry.
Second, the plan breaks the dissociation of meat from its animal origins by inducing emapthy and disgust. A 2016 study by Kunst and Hohle found that “dissociating meat from its animal origins may be a powerful way to avoid cognitive dissonance resulting from this ‘meat paradox.’ … [D]escribing industrial meat production as ‘harvesting’ versus ‘killing’ or ‘slaughtering’ indirectly reduced empathy. Last, replacing ‘beef/pork’ with ‘cow/pig’ in a restaurant menu increased empathy and disgust, which both equally reduced willingness to eat meat and increased willingness to choose an alternative vegetarian dish.” [3] In short, people dissociate meat from its animal origins all the time and meat producers contribute to this dissociation; our plan forces people to engage with the fact that meat comes from origins of suffering and abuse. Moreover, the usage of visceral imagery and language is uniquely helpful. A Faunalytics study found that vegan outrage videos involving images of suffering were the most effective in convincing people to consider abandoning meat, eggs, and dairy products. [4] This is a really powerful method of inducing empathy and disgust.
B. Effects of this sensitization
First, this would significantly reduce meat consumption. Sources [3] and [4] clearly illustrate the mechanism for this: when people realize how their meat is produced, they’ll choose more vegetarian and vegan alternatives, and reduce their meat consumption. This is a tremendous good, because it saves multiple animal lives. Indeed, a single person turning vegetarian would, on average, save between 371 and 582 animal lives per year. [5] While I realize that most people won’t completely turn vegetarian, the amount of reduction in meat consumption is still quite significant.
Second, even if it didn’t reduce meat consumption, it would change the kind of meat people eat. People would notice in these labels that, for instance, chickens suffer a lot more than cattle do in farms and that more chickens need to be killed for the same amount of meat than cattle. Thus, a person who generally eats more chicken would now shift to eating more beef. This would have a significant impact in terms of lives saved and suffering reduced. [6]
Third, this sensitization creates pressure on producers and suppliers to source their meat in more humane ways. It’s pretty well-established that there’s a profit incentive to engage in practices which end up causing more animal suffering. [7] However, the presence of ethical warning labels counters that with an alternate profit incentive. The more humane meat is, the more demand there is for it, when the plan is implemented. That means demand doesn’t reduce as significantly and shareholders don’t pull out. Thus, producers and suppliers source meat humanely, and animal suffering reduces.
Fourth, as a result of more sensitization to animal suffering, there’s more political capital for animal welfare regulations. Currently, these regulations aren’t passed because they cost money and because there’s pressure from organizations such as farmers’ unions against them. The presence of these labels would mobilize public pressure for governments to pass more policies to protect animals, such as requiring stunning before slaughter or mandating the presence of CCTV cameras inside factory farms. In France, for instance, animal rights group L214 released a series of videos of animal abuse inside these farms, creating pressure to mandate CCTV cameras in slaughterhouses and a parliament report recommending more mechanisms to reduce abuse and improve transparency. [8] The plan would spread such graphic images through labels to far more people and create much more discussion around such policies.
Fifth, sensitization to animal suffering among the general public would increase support for animal welfare advocacy groups and charities, causing more membership and more funding. The impact of this could be huge: the most effective charities save up to eleven animal lives per dollar [9] according to some figures.
C. Preventing animal abuse is morally desirable
I think this is fairly straightforward, but just to be thorough, here’s one warrant for this. The basis for moral considerations generally surrounds mental states – we recognize that suffering is intrinsically bad and that pleasure is intrinsically good, and seek to avoid them; thus, the most morally desirable actions maximize positive mental states (such as pleasure) and minimize negative ones (such as suffering).
Philosopher Christine Korsgaard explains, “When you pity a suffering animal, it is because you are perceiving a reason. An animal's cries express pain, and they mean that there is a reason, a reason to change its conditions. And you can no more hear the cries of an animal as mere noise than you can the words of a person. Another animal can obligate you in exactly the same way another person can . . . [s]o we have obligations to animals.” [10] It’s for this reason that we grant severely mentally enfeebled individuals and infants rights.
Thus, the plan protects thousands, if not millions, of animals from death and suffering.
(3) Mandating ethical warning labels would result in more sustainable agricultural practices
A. Reduced meat consumption advances environmental protection.
Meat production accounts for about 14.5% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. [11] Furthermore, overgrazing detrimentally affects multiple wildlife species by altering cover and food supplies. [12] Research also finds that raising livestock damages aquatic ecosystems. [13] In short, reducing meat consumption would be massively beneficial to the environment.
B. The plan improves food security outcomes.
Fiona Harvey of The Guardian explains, “The massive increase in meat consumption in rich countries in recent decades has led to spikes in the price of grain, used for animal feed, as well as leading to widespread deforestation and pressure on agricultural land.” [14] Lowered meat consumption uses agricultural land more efficiently and ensures better food security outcomes.

== Overviews ==
Observation 1: Con should be bound to defend their counterplan throughout the debate
Con has advocated a counterplan (“CP”) of tough animal welfare protections. Since Con’s case has been based on that advocacy, limit them to that advocacy – from this point on, this debate is a comparison between two advoacies.
Observation 2: Con’s CP contradicts their position on animal rights.
Con says that “awareness” is an important criterion for rights and that “causing widespread mild or moderate suffering among humans is worse than causing widespread severe suffering or death among domesticated animals.” Con then proceeds to limit their advocacy to a counterplan that would inevitably cause “mild or moderate suffering” among humans. Why? Because tough animal welfare regulations would inevitably increase the costs of production on meat manufacturers, forcing cuts in wages and some layoffs. Because they would increase the strain on the managers of these companies. The fact is that pervasive “mild or moderate suffering” among humans would be created by their CP, much more so than the sadness some empathetic people feel under my plan.
Since I’ve established that Con should be bound to defend their CP, this overview completely deals with the idea that awareness is a criterion for rights at all, or that mild human suffering matters more than severe suffering among animals.
Observation 3: Con’s CP isn’t mutually exclusive to my plan
It’s possible to pass both animal welfare regulations and place ethical warning labels on meat packaging. In particular, from this point on, I’m going to advocate a perm, wherein my advocacy will be to pass both my plan and Con’s CP together – I’m going to explain why this combination of the two advocacies is more beneficial than the CP through the unique benefits of my plan. However, in particular, I’ll say one thing about the perm here: without the perm, the CP doesn’t work. Why? In short, it isn’t permanent. Politicians will always have the power to repeal the CP and there’ll always be political capital to do so – farmers’ unions, powerful corporate lobbies, and many other special interest groups will advocate for the repeal of such laws. The perm does two things to ensure that these regulations remain permanent and aren’t repealed in the future: (1) It shifts public opinion – I gave you two warrants for why this sensitizes the public to animal abuse. This creates political capital to maintain these regulations into the future. (2) It weakens the lobbying power of companies, when they lose profits in the short term and shareholders pull out, limiting their money, and when public backlash forces them to lose the high political influence which they currently hold. Note that none of Con’s second contention or their rebuttal to my second and third contentions holds if the CP’s regulations are repealed in a few months – which means Con’s CP itself is a unique benefit of the plan.
== Rebuttal and case extensions ==
(1) Animal welfare and the unique benefits of my plan
A. Why is protecting animals the most important issue in the round?
The effects on animals are the most important impacts in this debate. Pro says that the mental states of animals aren’t as ethically relevant as the mental states of humans because of a lack of “awareness.” Many responses. First, this is an incoherent standard. I have no clue what “awareness” means. Second, Con doesn’t really prove the claim that awareness matters enough to suggest that moderate suffering by humans outweighs massive suffering by animals.
Second, Con’s big warrant for this standard is the suggestion that “an entity's awareness is an amplification factor for the objective gravity of its perceived suffering.” However, Con doesn’t prove that the amplification of suffering is of such high magnitude that we should weigh a bit of sadness felt by empathetic humans over the constant fear of death and the mass killing of animals. We wouldn’t do that with other beings with awareness (e.g. infants, mentally enfeebled individuals). In addition, Con doesn’t prove the link between “awareness” and pain at all. Both Con and I agree that reducing suffering is a good. I think it’s reasonably clear that the suffering of animals is greater: (1) Just out of the magnitude of the harm – in the best case scenario with meat, animals live under the constant fear of death until they are killed. (2) Sheer number: in the US alone, there are 9.2 billion animals in factory farms. So even if widespread moderate suffering by humans outweighs widespread extreme animal suffering, animals who suffer overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly, outnumber humans.
B. Unique benefits of the perm
Beyond OV2, the perm has some unique benefits to the welfare of farm animals. First, it would change food patterns and reduce meat consumption. Con says this is untrue, because people will just become desensitized and that “soon things would return to normal, and there would still be people purchasing unethically sourced meat products.” Two responses. One, the initial shift away from meat consumption or toward exclusively humane meat production practices would force corporations – who care about short-term profits – to shift to humane practices, which would then become the new normal and people would want to preserve that status quo. In particular, once the animal welfare regulations are passed, people wouldn’t want them to go because they would’ve learned about the harm that animals face. Two, many people would stop consuming meat altogether, and this is a huge impact, because it would mean significantly lower numbers of animals die and live in fear of death – this debate isn’t just about making practices more humane, it’s about saving animal lives. Three, it would change the kinds of meat people eat. Con completely drops this impact – that people would eat more beef and less chicken, they’d get used to that, and animal lives would be saved in that process. Second, my plan would increase support for animal advocacy groups. Con ignores that I made this point: even the small amount of charitable donations would save animal lives.
At bottom: (a) The CP won’t sustain without my plan along with it. (b) The CP saves animals from torture, but it doesn’t save their lives – my plan does. (c) Protecting animals is this debate’s most important issue.
(2) Sustainable agricultural practices
It was devastating to Con to drop this point for two sets of reasons.
A. The effects on wildlife
The real point where meat consumption causes animal suffering is this. “To support a global rise in per-capita meat-eating, livestock farming continues to expand, shrinking and fragmenting natural habitats in the process. And when cramped predators adapt by preying upon livestock, some ranchers go to extreme measures to keep them away, such as strapping pouches of neurotoxins to the necks of grazing lambs, or calling upon the United States Department of Agriculture to shoot down predators from government helicopters.” [1] Moreover, “[a] staggering 60 per cent of global biodiversity loss is down to the food we eat. We know a lot of people are aware that a meat-based diet has an impact on water and land, as well as causing greenhouse gas emissions, but few know the biggest issue of all comes from the crop-based feed the animals eat.” [2] Nearly 40% of the earth’s land is taken up by livestock farming – in the process, systematically resulting in ecological collpase and threatening the extinction of a variety of endangered species. [3]
B. The effects on humans
Section 2.2 doesn’t “supersede” one of the largest food security threats that humans face. It also doesn’t supersede one of the largest contributers to climate change – an existential threat to humanity. It’s really devastating to their credibility that Con thinks a few empathetic people being sad outweighs people not being able to put food on the table and facing extreme weather events. And just to be clear, these are overwhelmingly harmful effects on humans – much more harmful than the psychological harm Con wants to talk about. So even if you buy that humans have significantly more moral worth than animals, you can vote Pro.
There is a consensus: meat consumption is one of the key contributing factors of the sixth mass extinction. [4] The number of animal deaths is on an unprecedented scale in human history – and the existence of animal rights means we ought prevent that. Con dropping C3, at this point, systematically dooms their case.
(3) Consumer rights
On psychological harm, Con doesn’t really do much work explaining why this psychological harm is significant at all. They just assert this “affects the emotional development of children” and could be “traumatizing,” with no warrant whatsoever. Perhaps some people would be sad, at best – that doesn’t come close to outweighing the huge impacts above.  
The consumer right I protect is the right to information. Con’s only response to this is to say “this information is easily accessible.” This doesn’t engage, at all, with the empirical evidence I gave you in the last speech that tons of people don’t have some of this information: Two-thirds of people are unaware that killing all male chicks on egg farms is standard practice. 33% of adults don’t know dairy cows are slaughtered when milk yield drops. 88% of people don’t know that most pigs are killed around fourteen years before their typical lifespan ends. I’m not, to be clear, suggesting that people have a right to consume meat that was sourced unethically – I prevent that as well. I’m suggesting that people have a right to decline to consume meat that was sourced unethically.
Con’s CP isn’t mutually exclusive to my plan, but it’s only meaningful when coupled with my plan. Vote Pro.
[1] http://www.csmonitor.com...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com...
[3] https://edition.cnn.com...