Animals, Disease and Human Society

Human-animal Relations and the Rise of Veterinary Medicine

Joanna Swabe

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2002
• eBook ISBN: 9781134675395
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Medicina
• Subtopic: Sociologia

This book explores the history and nature of our dependency on other animals and the implications of this for human and animal health. Writing from an historical and sociological perspective, Joanna Swabe's work discusses such issues as: * animal domestication* the consequences of human exploitation of other animals, including links between human and animal disease* the rise of a veterinary regime, designed to protect humans and animals alike* implications of intensive farming practices, pet-keeping and recent biotechnological developments.This account spans a period of some ten thousand years, and raises important questions about the increasing intensification of animal use for both animal and human health.

1
INTRODUCTION

On animals we depend

In modern industrial society, where everyday existence often seems completely divorced from the natural world, it is all too easy for we humans to ignore the extent of our dependency on other animals. For the denizens of the great urban sprawls that typify the modern age, encounters with animals tend to be quite minimal. In towns and cities, the only animals that prevail are those that lurk around our homes and gardens as pets, those wild birds that inhabit the polluted skies and the vermin that creep stealthily through the sewers. Occasionally, the odd police horse may impinge upon this urban landscape, or a city farm might bring the sights and sounds of the countryside within arm’s reach. However, the closest that the average urban dweller will usually get to a chicken, cow, pig or sheep in everyday life is when they pluck a vacuum-packed cut of meat from the refrigerated shelves of the local supermarket for the evening meal. Even then, it is likely that they will be scarcely aware of — or will even question — the origins of their food. The animal form will have been carefully concealed in colourful and hermetically-sealed packaging, often with all traces of blood, vessels and fats removed. Alternatively, it may have been enshrouded in crispy crumbs or bathed in delectable sauces or marinades, disguising the meat still further. In today’s world, it is extremely easy to dissociate the product that is consumed from the living, breathing and feeling creature from whence it came (Fiddes 1991).

We are in fact dependent on animals to provide most of the protein that we consume. Meat, dairy produce and eggs constitute a significant part of the modern western diet. At times these animal products are eaten to excess; sometimes there is a reluctance to consume them at all. In recent years, for example, health concernshave increasingly led to an apparent decline in the consumption of red meat and an increase in poultry and fish eating. Furthermore, an increasing sensitivity to animal welfare and environmental issues has led more and more people to reject the consumption of meat and fish altogether. Vegetarianism is currently enjoying increasing popularity, although only a small proportion of those who stop eating meat will also cease to consume animal-derived protein altogether. Even when animal flesh has been excluded, dairy produce and eggs will often continue to play an important role in the vegetarian diet.¹ However, our dependence on animals to provide a large proportion of our food does not simply stop at the provision of meat, milk and eggs.

The modern western diet is a highly complex one that is greatly reliant upon manufactured foods. A supermarket today is like an Aladdin’s cave where one can find everything that one’s heart and stomach desires. From gourmet microwave meals to mouth-watering cakes, biscuits and pastries, literally hundreds of ready-made food products line the shelves to entice the consumer. But what goes into these products? How are they made? Take, for example, confectionery; a packet of, let us say, wine gums may seem completely innocuous until one takes the trouble to read the label. High on the list of ingredients one is likely to find reference to a substance called ‘gelatine’. These tasty sweets may seem somewhat less appetising when one realises that gelatine is in fact a thickener that is obtained by boiling the skins, tendons, ligaments and bones of slaughtered animals (Ockerman and Hansen 1988: 132–57). At first glance, confectionery bears very little relationship to cattle, but the link is very often there. In reality, much of the manufactured food that we today ingest is not always of such obvious animal origin; so much so that even the most committed of vegetarians can end up consuming byproducts of the slaughterhouse unwittingly. Unless one has an encyclopaedic knowledge of ingredients and food additives, falling foul of slaughterhouse by-products is easy. Moreover, reading labels is also far from infallible; a substance, such as glycerine, can derive either from the abattoir, or from vegetable sources.

Our dependency on animals as the providers of food thus goes far beyond simply the production of meat, milk and eggs; what remains of the animal after it has been used in life and its quality edible parts removed after death is essential to the production of manufactured foods. Slaughtered animals are generally exploited to the full and the substances obtained from dead animals are a valu-able source of income for farmers and abattoir owners (see Appendix, Tables 2, 3 and 4). After slaughter, precious little of the animal is wasted: the fats, gelatine, glycerine, rennet and collagen commonly found in food are all generally derived from slaughtered animals. Glycerine, for instance, is used as a humectant (moistener) and solvent for other food additives. Rennet, an enzyme with coagulant properties used in the manufacture of cheese, is obtained from the stomachs of slaughtered calves (Ockerman and Hansen 1988: 198). Collagen too derives from the connective tissue from meat, and is found in food and also, more commonly, cosmetics. Even the E numbers that are found almost ubiquitously in manufactured food may derive from animals. Food additives, such as emulsifiers, stabilisers, thickeners and glazing agents, can often be of animal origin. In addition to these slaughterhouse by-products, one may find other animal ingredients such as lactose and lecithin that are derived from milk and eggs respectively. Even those vegetarians who enjoy a tipple might be unpleasantly surprised to discover that their favourite beverage contains rather more than just alcohol. Beer conditioned in casks, for instance, requires fining to clear the yeast which is suspended in the liquid during the brewing process. Isinglass, a substance derived from the bladders of sturgeon, is commonly used to perform this task. Similarly, wine production also involves fining: isinglass, gelatine, egg albumen, casein, chitin (from the shells of crabs and lobsters) and, in the past, even ox blood have been commonly used for this purpose (Bowler 1990: 110–11).²

Further to food, we are also dependent on animals for their natural fibres and hides. Textiles made from wool provide us with warmth and floor coverings, animal hair and bristles are used to make brushes and hide to make shoes, clothes, furniture, sports equipment and even cleaning cloths. Parchment and vellum are also made from animal skin. Animal fur is not only used to make coats and hats, but can also be found on children’s toys. Duck and goose down is used to fill pillows, duvets and sleeping bags, and feathers used to decorate hats or make quills for calligraphy. Animal bones are used to make high-quality china goods. Further to this, animal fats from the slaughterhouse, such as tallow, can be used to produce cheap candles and soap. Other abattoir by-produce is commonly found in cosmetics. Moisturising creams, for instance, often contain collagen or the animal proteins reticulin and elastin; hair conditioners are made using keratin, an animal protein obtained from wool or the slaughterhouse. Stearates are also used as emollients in creams and lotions, as well as in lipsticks, shampoos and asemulsifiers for perfumes. Additionally, lanolin, a substance obtained from the grease found on sheep wool, is often found in cosmetics. It may surprise many people to learn that although their cosmetics may not necessarily have been tested on animals, they nonetheless contain ingredients that often derive from the slaughterhouse. Likewise, photography is entirely dependent upon gelatine for processing. Unlike many other ingredients, there is no alternative to this substance if one wishes to make photographic prints (Ockerman and Hansen 1988: 152). Even the medicines that we ingest or inject are often of animal origin: e.g. insulin, amino acids, oestrogen, progesterone, testosterone, steroids and, less frequently, vitamin B12 and calcium (Ockerman and Hansen 1988: 176– 200). Garden and agricultural fertilisers may also contain dried blood and bone-meal, in addition to animal manure (Kotula 1991). Finally, animal remains are commonly rendered down and used to make feed for agricultural animals. The wisdom of feeding herbivores on the remains of other creatures, however, has recently come into question in the light of the emergence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), the so-called ‘mad cow disease’ (Fisher 1997; Lacey 1994).

In the modern world, we are also highly dependent on animals to test the safety and reliability of many of the products that we use in our everyday lives. Animals are commonly employed in laboratory settings to gauge the potential toxicity of ordinary household products such as shampoos, detergents, toothpaste, washing powder, glues, pesticides, cosmetics and toiletries, in addition to testing for the kind of eye and skin irritation such products may possibly cause. Even the cigarettes to which a substantial proportion of the western population are addicted have also been tested on animals during the course of their development and manufacture. Animals have also been used by the military to assess and improve the effectiveness and impact of modern weaponry. The physical effects of poisonous gases, radiation and bullets have, for example, been appraised through the use of animals. Likewise, animals have also made useful tools for psychological research, providing behavioural data from which, for example, human mental processes have been imputed (Singer 1990: 25–94). Furthermore, animal testing is more or less standard in the pharmaceutical industry. Before medicines are deemed safe for human use, they are required under governmental regulations to undergo stringent tests. In the earlier stages of development, such tests will often involve gauging the drug’s effect and potency in animals. Even the vaccines and drugs employed for veterinary use will generally have undergone extensivetests for quality control on laboratory and target animals in order to ensure their safety for use on other animals (van der Kamp 1994). While alternatives have been developed that, in some circumstances, obviate the need for experimentation on live animals — and, in recent years, the numbers and kinds of animals used for experimentation have been significantly reduced — animal use within the biomedical and life sciences remains commonplace. Irrespective of changes in attitudes and scientific practices, the scientific and medical research community still have a vested interest in perpetuating animal experimentation given the employment opportunities it offers for both researchers and technicians.

Aside from their roles as the providers of edible and useful ingredients and as the tools of science, animals in our society are also commonly used for entertainment and recreational purposes. Zoological gardens and wildlife parks, for instance, provide us with the opportunity to observe exotic and often dangerous wild animals. Likewise, we also turn to television, which has taken the animal kingdom as one of its favourite subjects to enlighten and entertain. We visit circuses to watch animals perform death-defying feats and attend gymkhanas, horse races and dog tracks to see — and sometimes even bet on — the skill and speed with which animals can move at human command. Equine mounts are also saddled up for pure recreation. Cantering on horseback through the countryside or parks is a pastime that many enjoy; some even using these animals to indulge themselves in yet another ‘sporting pleasure’ involving other creatures, namely the hunting and killing of foxes and deer. Horseriding may also be used to assist the therapy of disabled and handicapped people, particularly children; such ‘hippotherapy’ has been found to have significant emotional and physical benefits (CSS report 1988: 36– 7). We even enjoy riding on the backs of trussed-up donkeys when we visit the seaside. Animals are also kept recreationally as a hobby; cat and dog fanciers attend shows to eagerly parade and win prizes for the specimens that they have painstakingly bred and groomed, while those keeping or collecting more unusual pets such as reptiles, insects and ornamental fish often belong to specialist clubs and societies that service their animal interests. Caged birds and aquaria are also kept purely for ornamental purposes, as decoration for homes, restaurants, offices and other public places (CSS report 1988: 3–5). As we shall see later in this volume, animals are also widely kept by people as pets for a wide variety of reasons, the most significant of which being the pure companionship that they can offer. On a more perverse note,animals may sometimes serve a rather dubious recreational function as the subjects of pornography and sexual delight (Dekkers 1992).

Finally, we are reliant on animals to perform highly specific tasks within our society. Dogs, in particular, have been found to have a multitude of working uses throughout the ages. Sheepdogs have for centuries been trained to herd and protect flocks of sheep. Likewise, large and powerful breeds, such as Alsatians, Dobermans and Rottweilers, have been frequently employed to guard and protect private property. Today, the police and military services also commonly use Alsatians in their routine work to intimidate and apprehend suspects. Furthermore, police, military and customs authorities employ smaller and specially trained ‘sniffer’ dogs in order to search for illegal drugs and explosives. The canine sense of smell and the species’ great tractability have also made them useful helpers in the rescue of trapped and injured people after accidents and disasters. The ability to track and retrieve prey is also an age-old character trait that has to this day made the dog a favourite hunting partner for humans. Throughout the past few decades, canines have increasingly been used to help humans as guide dogs for the blind, hearing dogs for the deaf and as service dogs for the disabled. Horses are today also employed as working animals, generally by the police and military. Sometimes their use is purely ceremonial, but with their size and brute force they are often utilised for crowd control and for surveillance purposes.

This catalogue of animal usage is by no means exhaustive. There are many more ways in which we depend on animals in our everyday lives, not all of them as practical as those uses listed above. We should not, for example, underestimate the important role that animals have often played in cultural thought and practice. As various anthropologists have been keen to point out, animals possess a great symbolic power and the way in which they have been represented in various cultures, including our own, has influenced both the manner in which we view human identity and think about other species (e.g. Douglas 1966; Lévi-Strauss 1966; Ingold 1988; Willis 1990). Animals are, it seems, not only good to eat, but also ‘good to think’ (Harris 1985a; Tambiah 1969). The power of animal symbolism and representations can clearly be found today in the animal imagery that pervades today’s society through the mass media, advertising and film (Baker 1993). We are also dependent on animals to enrich our language: animals provide powerful metaphors with which we can describe others, in addition to being the source of a whole host of extremely effective insults on which wecan depend to cause our fellow humans emotional injury (Leach 1964; Fiddes 1991).

About Animals, Disease and Human Society

This book is primarily about our species’ great dependency on other animals. It is about the way in which animals have been manipulated and used to service human needs, desires and requirements throughout human history. More importantly, this book is about the serious repercussions that humankind has had to face as a consequence of its ever-increasing and intensifying exploitation of animals. When I speak of animal exploitation, I do not intend it in any kind of derogatory or moralistic sense: this book is most definitely not about animal rights or human wrongs. Although the moral status of animals within human society is a very important issue indeed, it has not been the specific focus of my work. More to the point, I feel that it is a subject that has already been dealt with more than sufficiently in the existing literature on the human-animal relationship. The philosophical, political and ethical aspects of the rights of animals have, for example, been extensively and intelligently discussed by authors such as Peter Singer (1990), Mary Midgley (1983) and Tom Regan (1984); while the more sociological angle on the subject of animal rights has already been covered by Keith Tester (1991). My aim, as a sociologist, is to provide as dispassionate a view as possible of our relationship with other animals, rather than to become embroiled in political and moral debate. In this respect I have used the expression ‘animal exploitation’ throughout this volume in its very strictest sense, i.e. that we derive benefit from utilising animals to our own ends. Indeed, it is my view that humans tend to regard animals as a natural resource; they provide us with a reliable, continual and self-renewing supply of the protein, hide, natural fibres, manure and muscle power, etc., on which we depend (Swabe 1996). It is my contention that the exploitation of animals has become part of — what Pierre Bourdieu (1984) has described as — our habitus; in other words, it is a principle that the vast majority leave unquestioned in their everyday lives. The apparently tacit

The apparently tacit assumption that humans have the prerogative to exploit other creatures to their own ends has in fact found a great deal of concrete support throughout the history of European society, most particularly within the teachings of the Judaeo- Christian tradition. According to the biblical narrative of Genesis 1: 26–8 and Genesis 9: 2–3, humankind’s right to have dominion over and subdue other living creatures was a God-given one. Human ascendancy over the natural world was, thus, taken to be part and parcel of the divine plan. Under the influence of such theological rationalisations, animals were simply understood by people to be there, and specially designed by the creator, to serve specific human purposes. In this regard, Keith Thomas cites one early eighteenth-century physician who went so far as to argue that God even made ‘horse’s excrement smell sweet, because he knew that men would often be in its vicinity’ (Thomas 1983: 17– 19). Few theological thinkers throughout the early modern period cared to even question the biblical licence to exploit animals. Indeed, the Roman Catholic church appears to have overlooked the issue altogether; perhaps, it has been suggested, because Catholicism assumed there to be a huge gap between animals — that were irrational — and the rational humans who possessed immortal souls (Maehle 1994: 82).

Theological justifications of animal use were further bolstered by philosophical doctrine, as the Cartesian school of thought gained popularity during the seventeenth century. According to Descartes and his followers, animals were simply intricate and soulless machines; automata which, although they could produce apparently complex behaviour, were devoid of the capacity for reason or sensibility. Such thinking provided the legitimisation of much cruelty being inflicted on animals in the name of scientific progress (Serpell 1996; Regan 1983). To what extent both the theological and philosophical thought of the past actually influenced the everyday conduct of ordinary folk towards animals is another matter. Thomas has alluded to many instances of human affection for animals that contradict the view that animals were treated like mechanical objects rather than sentient beings. Moreover, he also reveals that the commitment to the prevailing theological doctrine of human ascendancy may not have always been quite as strong or influential in everyday life as one might be led to believe (Thomas 1983: 92– 120).

By the eighteenth century, the bible had become subject to rather less literal interpretation. As a consequence, the notion that humans were the caretakers of the natural world, rather than the controllers of it, grew in popularity and influence. This new-found Christian concept of stewardship entreated that animals should be treated carefully, respectfully and responsibly. Humans had a clear duty to animals to ensure that they were fed, sheltered and cared for adequately, should be slaughtered as quickly and painlessly as possible and not needlessly over-exerted (Maehle 1994: 85). Animals could thus legitimately be exploited for necessary human ends, such as for nourishment and traction, as long as they were exploited with due care and respect. Further to this change in theological thinking, from the mid-eighteenth century onwards, there was increasing interest in the welfare of the animals used by human society, which in turn was supported by a growing knowledge of both animal and human anatomy and physiology which suggested that animals were indeed sentient creatures capable of feeling pain. This issue, with regard to the nature of our use and treatment of animals, came to be encapsulated in Jeremy Bentham’s much quoted dictum: ‘the question is not, Can they reason? Nor, Can they talk? But, Can they suffer?’ (quoted in Regan 1983: 95). Such early discussions on animal sentience and human duties to other creatures provided the basis for the evolution of the animal rights and welfare movements that today either seek to improve the lot of animals in human society or eradicate animal exploitation altogether. Yet, in spite of such changes in thought and theological tradition, as we continue to advance towards the twenty-first century, our use of animals appears to have steadily intensified, rather than to have diminished. As the introductory discussion above demonstrates, it is evident that modern industrial society is highly dependent on the exploitation of animal resources; though, at the same time, we also seem to be far less aware of the great extent of that dependency.

The Christian concept of stewardship and the notion of our duties towards other animals discussed above to some extent touch on the second main theme with which this book is concerned, namely the human responsibility to adequately feed and care for the animals that are used to service human needs. However, when I speak of responsibility, it is not in terms of our duties and moral obligations towards animals, but is instead in terms of human interest. The animals with which this book is primarily concerned are those domesti...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Acknowledgements
• 1: Introduction
• 2: Domestication, Dependency and Disease
• 3: Animals, Disease and Human Social Life From Ancient Times To The Early Modern Period
• 4: The Unfolding Veterinary Regime
• 5: The Intensification Of Livestock Production And The Veterinary Regime During The Twentieth Century
• 6: Pandering To Pets Pet-keeping And The Emergence of Smallanimal Practice
• 7: Epilogue
• Appendix
• Notes
• Bibliography