You are here: Home - Opinions - Columns - Lack of debate from PETA opposition

Lack of debate from PETA opposition

As a vice president for policy and government affairs at PETA, I have debated animal protection issues around the world, frequently engaging with representatives from the meat, fur, animal-experimentation and circus industries.

But a funny thing started happening about eight or nine years ago: The other side stopped showing up.

Although PETA is always happy to discuss and debate animal rights issues, the animal exploiters are no longer willing to. I believe their newfound timidity may have something to do with the fact that their positions are so transparently indefensible and that the public can see right through them.

A person would think, however, that this reluctance would not extend to academia. Surely university professors should welcome an open and respectful forum to discuss the issues that they work on.

On numerous occasions last summer, representatives of Speak Out for Species — the campus animal rights organization — attempted to arrange for a forum that would include me and a representative from the UGA Animal and Dairy Science Department.

They reached out to numerous professors and researchers, including the department head, Dr. J. Keith Bertrand, and Dr. A. Bruce Webster of the Department of Poultry Science.

I was prepared to argue that animal use is not necessary and that modern slaughter methods and factory farm confinement practices are cruel, and they would have undoubtedly taken the opposing view.

Since both are respected representatives of their field — Webster is also an advisor to Kentucky Fried Chicken on animal welfare issues and Bertrand is widely regarded as a leading livestock researcher in the animal science community — they both seemed to be the ideal advocates for those who support animal use.

Sadly, both flatly refused to participate. More remarkable still was how they refused. Webster went so far as to attack me personally, stating that “I don’t believe it would be possible to have a truly academic discussion with such a person on the program.”

Bertrand not only refused to participate in the event but also spoke on behalf of the rest of his department, stating that “I nor anyone in the Animal and Dairy Science Department will debate Mr. Friedrich.”

All things considered, it’s understandable why representatives of the meat industry would be afraid to hold an open and honest forum, but if Bertrand and Webster believe that they are doing honorable work, it’s less clear to me why they refuse to participate.

My father has been in academia for more than 40 years, and I have the deepest respect for university communities, which traditionally foster the free exchange of ideas.

Here’s the reality: Animals living on factory farms and dying in slaughterhouses face abuses so severe that they could warrant felony cruelty-to-animals charges if dogs or cats were the victims instead of cows, turkeys, pigs and chickens.

For example, McDonald’s suppliers cram mother pigs into crates that are too small for them to turn around in, cram hens into tiny cages that cause their muscles and bones to waste away from lack of use and kill chickens using a method that guarantees that every year millions of birds will still be conscious when they are immersed in tanks of scalding-hot water to be defeathered.

Thankfully, students do see the value in debating these important issues. To their credit, the Georgia Debate Union, along with a representative of Speak Out for Species, will be joining me for an event today titled “Is Eating Meat Desirable?”

The event will allow attendees to hear both sides of the issue, and I encourage all students and faculty to watch it live at 5 p.m., in Tate, Grand Hall D. Animal science students are particularly encouraged to attend.

Hopefully, through lively audience participation, we can still have the robust discussion that these issues warrant.

— Bruce Friedrich is PETA’s vice president for policy and government affairs