The ethical implications behind the Irish-Chinese trade agreement go beyond human rights abuses

May 2012

A version of this article was printed in The Irish Vegetarian, Issue 138, Spring 2013

Following the recent visit of the People’s Republic of China Vice President, Xi Jinping, to Ireland in February, along with a return trip to China by An Taoiseach Enda Kenny and a number of Ministers the following month, there was a general sense of confidence from TDs and comments in the national press.  

Mr Xi, who is tipped to be the next Chinese leader, and a 150-member delegation together with five Chinese government ministers, discussed trade and investment opportunities with Mr Kenny during his stay.  An agreement to develop trade and investment between the two nations was signed at a forum hosted by Enterprise Ireland. This deal aims to promote trade, especially in the area of education, agriculture, and food.

In the Sunday Business Post (19 February), Simon Coveney, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, said “a political and commercial relationship” with China and its expanding market offered “infinite” opportunities to business in Ireland, which includes the agri-food sector. China’s growing middle-class population, he maintains, was showing considerable appetite for a range of Irish quality agri-food products.

Commenting in the Irish Independent (20 February), Thomas Molloy confidently reminds us that the “Chinese need food and we have it.” In particular they need “beef and cow hides and we are one of Europe’s great cattle producing nations.” He goes on to say that China’s “demand for animal skins to make everything from handbags to shoes is so strong these days it pushed gelatine prices to record levels.” A second Independent report on the same day said: “it’s exactly for this reason that our agri-food sector is one of the most optimistic places to be right now.”

A business deal of this magnitude, to be sure, is always going to engender criticism because of China’s abysmal human rights record. Amnesty International, for instance, urged government officials to speak out against China’s abuse of human rights upon Mr Xi’s visit.   There were at least two national newspaper columns criticising Ireland’s political and trade relations with China because of their human rights abuses.

There is another issue, however, that hasn’t been mentioned anywhere yet: the concern for non-human, farm animals were not, as far I can tell, alluded to in the public debate. The growth of agri-business resulting from the trade deal will surely increase the volume of pain and suffering inflicted on non-human animals.

As specified in the Irish Times (16 April), Ireland plans to play a key role in attempts to expand China’s horse racing industry -- a deal which is estimated to make €40 million for Ireland over the next three years.  If we accept that human rights abuses in China occur as regularly as reports suggest, surely we must also assume that exporting horses there will also expose them to abuses.

Furthermore, because of developing economies in such places as China and India, the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates that the global consumption of meat is set to double between 2000 and 2050. That will vastly increase the amount of suffering and slaughtering inflicted upon non-human animals than what existed at the start of the century.

On the whole, people in western liberal societies nowadays are appalled when they learn about cases of discrimination, such as racism, sexism, and homophobia.  Most people, to be fair, are also revolted when they hear about cruel treatment inflicted upon non-human animals; however, when it comes to animal flesh as a commodity -- especially practices carried out in factory farm conditions -- we would rather ignore this reality, preferring instead to bury our heads in the sand.

The moral argument against using non-human animals for meat, I believe, is self-evident; there is no justification for meat consumption (in developed societies at least). Yet the argument in many cases rarely convinces. This anthropocentric viewpoint has fashioned much of western thinking throughout history: the long tradition of placing non-human animals outside the realm of significance because they don’t possess rational minds (or souls), a capacity for languages, or their perceived inability to morally reciprocate, has been the basis of depriving them of moral weight.

These were the views of many Christian scholars throughout the ages, the father of modern philosophy, René Descartes, and the great thinker of the Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant. Perhaps the first to challenge the capacity to reason as the definitive measurement for giving moral weight to beings was Jeremy Bentham.  In the late 18^th century, when considering the moral interests we give to sentient beings (non-human animals included), Bentham asks: “the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”

Surely Bentham’s argument is reasonable: the pain experienced by a sentient being -- apart from her level of intelligence, capacity to reason, or her ability to use language -- must be given moral weight, regardless of what species she belongs to. This viewpoint, of course, does not propose that all sentient beings deserve a full range of human rights (the right to vote, for example), but it certainly does suggest meriting non-human, sentient animals a lot more consideration and compassion that what currently exists.

Still, you may say that we are human beings and it is entirely natural that we are inclined to give greater weight to the interest of humans over non-human animals. But is this not just another form of discrimination? -- what is, in many instances, referred to as “speciesism” -- namely the excessive moral weight we give to members of one species (in this case, Homo sapiens) over others.

In colonial times, the racists of European nations generally did not accept that pain mattered as much when it was felt by other races as when it was felt by Europeans. Whilst not in any way comparing the suffering of non-Europeans with non-human animals, it may be possible to imagine that speciesism, at some future stage, will be held with similar contempt as are other forms of discrimination today.  A politician nowadays would have to resign (or at least, publicly apologise), if he was associated with, say, racism; but what he puts on his dinner plate would never cause him to quit office or generate public scandal, regardless of the pain and suffering caused to the source of the meat, i.e. the animal. This may not always be the case.

There are other reasons why an increase in meat consumption may have negative consequences. It places greater demand on the environment in terms of land, energy, and water that other kinds of farming. Vaclav Smil calculates, in Feeding the World, that it is not possible for everybody in the world to eat as much meat as people in the affluent world currently consume, as to supply that amount of meat would require 67 percent more agricultural land that the planet has available.  Moreover, the findings of a major recent study, carried out over 28 years and published in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine, suggest that eating red meat significantly adds to the risk of death from heart disease and cancer.

A lucrative trade deal with China is not necessarily a bad thing in essence; rather I would like to challenge the assumption that a trade deal that will increase the supply of meat products is morally acceptable. In spite of the economic benefits it may bring about, we must realise that we should not only be alarmed by human rights violations in China, but also troubled by the increase of animals that will be slaughtered and mistreated as a result of the trade deal.

In order to have a more socially progressive deal, perhaps Ireland and China could look to create opportunities in developing trade with quality non-meat food commodities instead; both countries have a long history of growing and producing food from different grains, vegetables and fruit.  For sure, there could be growth potential in this area.

The more we now know about the cruelty that is foisted upon non-human animals for food, the impact meat consumption has on the environment, and the benefits of a healthy vegetarian diet, perhaps this trade deal gives us the space to seriously think about reducing our consumption of meat in society and start replacing it with possible viable substitutes.