Abstract
This article examined reasons why information pertaining to nonhuman animal welfare and liberation should be introduced during childhood. Studies indicate that animal-welfare activists’ and abolitionists’ efforts to date may be insufficient given the pervasive environmental destruction and ongoing animal suffering. Moreover, research reveals that education related to animal welfare and liberation is systematically excluded from children’s education, and they thus remain unaware of the sources and associated health hazards of meat they consume. Conversely, children’s knowledge about animal welfare increases when exposed to literature on the topic, which enables them to make informed choices regarding meat consumption. This paper draws on animal-welfare and liberation literature to argue that augmenting children’s knowledge about animal welfare and liberation can foster children’s understanding, language, philosophy, and ability to make informed choices about their relationship with animals and the environment in general.
Introduction
This article argues that concepts related to nonhuman animal welfare and liberation should be introduced during children’s education because current educational approaches do little to familiarize children with such concepts prior to adulthood, at which point ideologies that hierarchize humans and nonhuman animals may become entrenched (Foer, 2009a, 2009b). Animal-welfare and liberation groups continue to create awareness of animal cruelty, environmental degradation caused by intensive animal farming, and humane ways that animals should be treated (see Farm Animal Rights Movement, n.d.; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA], 2017; Vegan Outreach, 2014). The persistent message disseminated by such groups has called attention to animal farmers’ treatment of animals as well as to the benefits of plant-based diets and their potential to replace animal-based foods. Ultimately, such groups and animal-welfare and liberation scholars have prompted the United Nations (UN) to incorporate animal protection and welfare into its long-range goals that essentially envisage a world “in which humanity lives in harmony with nature and in which wildlife and other living species are protected” (UN Division of Sustainable Development, 2015, Our Vision section, para. 3).
In spite of such an optimistic outlook, attaining the UN’s audacious goal and realizing animal-welfare and liberation activists’ laudable objectives requires a concerted effort by caregivers and educational institutions alike to begin animal-welfare and liberation education with children—the future adult decision-makers. Towards this end, this study builds upon Danti’s (2016) “Black Vegans Rock” web series that exposes the lack of information about animal welfare, rights, and liberation in his home country (Ghana), and Foer’s (2009a) New York Times article titled “Against Meat” describing the harmful effects of a meat-eating culture that he attributes mainly to the lack of animal-welfare and liberation education during childhood.
Danti (2016) and Foer (2009a) discuss the passive knowledge many children have about animal welfare and rights, and why some people decide to become vegetarians and vegans. Foer (2009a, 2009b) outlines the environmental impacts of animal agriculture and the associated health risks of meat consumption that are seldom presented to children in popular media or educational programs. Despite the animal-welfare and liberation movements’ increased momentum over the years, many meat consumers receive scant information about the potential risks of animal agriculture either to the environment or to their own health. A review of the literature clearly indicates that animal-welfare and liberation education for children is lacking on a global scale, despite its increasing prevalence in higher institutions (Best, 2009; Shapiro & DeMello, 2010) and among related educational organizations (e.g., Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, n.d.; Compassionate Action Institute, 2000; PETA Kids, 2017).
Foer (2009a, 2009b) and Rice (2014) also remind us that many people, especially those who consume meat, are not aware of the relationship between the meat on their plates and the farm animals from which such foodstuffs are derived. Foer (2009a) expresses a concern shared by many parents when he ponders how he could make his children “conscious of the choices before them” (p. 6). Expanding on Foer’s concern, parents and all other individuals involved in children’s lives are responsible to provide them with honest information about animals’ well-being and the effects of animal agriculture on the environment. Such education can help children make better choices not only regarding the type of relationships they will have with animals but also the decisions they eventually will make in relation to the broader ecosystem.
Giannetto (2013) and Sanbonmatsu (2014) maintain that humans should use alternatives to animal products such as fruit, vegetables, and other plant-based food sources that provide better nutritional benefits for humans. The argument put forth by these scholars is valid; however, such discussion is normally limited to and concentrated in higher levels of learning, typically postsecondary educational programming (Best, 2009; Campbell & Campbell, 2005). Children are usually excluded from the discourse on animal-welfare and liberation issues, a situation that makes it difficult to influence those who rely on animals for their nourishment and livelihood (Foer, 2009a, 2009b; Rowe, 2011, 2012).
Rice (2014) strongly opposes the use of animals as food for humans and questions the use of animal products in United States school nutritional programs, given the potential health implications of eating meat. Such opposition is supported by Sinha, Cross, Graubard, Leitzmann, and Schatzkin (2009), whose broad study of over half a million people showed that animal-based food can potentially induce cancer and cardiovascular mortality in both men and women. It is also supported by Campbell and Campbell (2005), whose findings revealed a direct link between animal-based diets and risks of type 1 diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and various kinds of cancer. These findings call for further research on the negative effects of meat consumption and the potential benefits of vegetarian and vegan diets for humans.
The World Health Organization’s (WHO, 2015) statement on the Links Between Processed Meat and Colorectal Cancer exemplifies the cautionary information pertaining to possible health hazards that meat consumption may pose to humans. Responding to queries regarding its earlier statement on the possible link between eating processed and/or red meat and colorectal cancer, the WHO expressed that individuals should reduce their consumption of such foods in order to also reduce the risk of colorectal cancer. The WHO further indicated that it would continue to evaluate the link between meat consumption and individuals’ overall health. In short, further research and information is still needed to educate humans about meat consumption. It is against this background that both school and home environments could be pragmatic and proactive in their dealings with issues concerning the relationship between humans and nonhuman animals. Such pragmatism could encompass the early involvement of children in discussions on animal welfare and liberation, because studies such as those commissioned by the WHO indicate that society needs more information and understanding about humanity’s relationship with other sentient beings (WHO, 2015).
Aguirre and Orihuela’s (2010) animal-welfare course delivered to grade 1 pupils over a 10-week period revealed that child participants retained most concepts pertaining to animal welfare during the span of their studies. Similarly, based on findings in a follow-up to an earlier study, Ascione and Weber (1996) determined that the attitudinal change that manifests in elementary school children after even a brief humane education program persists for at least a year. Nicoll, Trifone, and Samuels (2008) in turn concluded that children have the potential to retain valuable information about and develop positive attitudes towards animals due to such humane educational programming. While both Nicoll et al. and Aguirre and Orihuela admit they are not sure how long the effects of humane education will last in young people, their studies suggest that child participants in such education programs at least may have a chance to develop life-long compassion for animals given their early introduction to such a paradigm.
In order to break the silence and to shed some light on the negative impacts of animal agriculture on the environment and the possible long-term health implications for humans, parents and teachers should be encouraged to educate children both formally and informally on such matters. Pragmatic and proactive education on animal-welfare and liberation issues will help create and increase children’s awareness about what they need to know about the human–animal relationship, which is why it is in the best interest of society to include animal studies (encompassing animal welfare, rights, and liberation) in the elementary school curriculum. In addition, introducing children to animal-welfare and liberation education at home may produce well-informed and educated citizens who in turn will become more responsible for the welfare of other beings as a whole and on a global scale.
Nonhuman Animal Welfare
Fraser (2008) discusses the difficulty that animal-welfare scholars, activists, and farmers have in establishing a standard definition of “animal welfare,” which he attributes to the “science” versus “value” debate of the concept. According to Fraser, proponents of the science divide argue that animals in intensive care (i.e., in agricultural or laboratory settings) receive better nutrition, health care, and assistance through scientific and technological innovations. On the other hand, the value-based ideology surrounding animal welfare states that restrictions on animals’ free movement ultimately inflict pain (be it physical, psychological, or both) and diminish animals’ well-being.
The lack of a standard definition for animal welfare gives some scientists, animal farmers, and people who brand themselves as animal-welfare activists and scholars the opportunity to conceptualize animal welfare across a wide spectrum. Such flexibility and the lack of clear definitions ultimately enable critics and related parties to justify the treatment of animals in order to convince others that farm animals receive adequate food, shelter, and medication before they are exploited and later consumed by humans. Haynes (2011) asserts that “humans tend to give more consideration to their own interests” (p. 114). This assertion is accurate, insofar as studies suggest that anthropocentrism persists in the human–animal divide (Best, 2009; Sanbonmatsu, 2014). In the end, adherence to such a paradigm means that animals succumb to whatever humans deem appropriate for the animals’ existence.
Proponents of animal liberation such as Sanbonmatsu (2014) and Wyckoff (2014) berate animal-welfare scholars for doing too little to liberate animals from human cruelty. Such animal-liberation scholars argue that animal- welfare partisans are only interested in improving the lives of agricultural animals through perceived better care (i.e., improved food, cages, and health care) and slaughtering methods that do not inflict too much suffering on animals. Still, as Porcher (2011) asserts, “even though the issue of ‘animal welfare’ is not new, it has never been so out of touch with the reality of work as it is today” (p. 10). Porcher questions why so much money has been spent on research seeking to better animals’ lives while the situation has seen little or no improvement over the years, and she argues that “Animal welfare conceals animal suffering by suggesting that animals can be ‘well’ in industrial and intensified systems” (p. 11).
Furthering this discussion, the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy’s (AAWS’s) vision statement stresses that “The welfare of all animals in Australia is promoted and protected by the development and adoption of sound animal welfare standards and practices” (Agriculture Victoria, 2016, para. 5). However, the AAWS does not provide a working definition, a meaning, or an explanation of animal welfare that may shed some light on the topic for people who are unfamiliar with the concept. Even McGlone’s (1993) aptly titled “What Is Animal Welfare?” provides a simplistic definition of the concept: good health, shelter, food, exercise, and the general well-being of an individual animal. According to Giannetto (2013) and Haynes (2011), the reasons humans struggle to define animal welfare is that most people’s sense of superiority in the human–animal relationship influences animals’ entire lives. For instance, a farmer may find it appropriate to perform immunocastration on male piglets born in a particular time, which animal-welfare activists and scholars may deem acceptable due to the alleged reduction of pain involved in the process (Porcher, 2011).
Anthropocentrism, explained as humans’ feelings of moral and intellectual superiority in relation to other beings or species different from their own kind (Best, 2009; Giannetto, 2013), permeates the work of animal-welfare scholars who feel that it is acceptable to slaughter, milk, or otherwise use animals as long as they are treated humanely. By exposing children to animal-welfare and liberation education, society may be able to reduce, if not eliminate, such anthropocentric thinking that often leads to cruelty against animals and other beings. Such education could give children better knowledge and skills necessary for healthier human–animal relationships, at least better than those available to previous and even current generations.
Further questions to ask are: What is the main purpose of animal welfare? Is the concept used mainly to make animal products more palatable (on more than one level) for humans? Does it mean that animal-welfare scholars care only about humans benefitting from a healthier, well-fed animal for food but not necessarily the liberation of animals? These and many other questions ought to be discussed in elementary schools so that children will grow up to fully understand what animal welfare entails. Exposing children at an early age to what animal welfare is about will enable schools and communities in general to identify the contradictions and injustices that permeate animal-welfare activities. Children will therefore learn to make informed choices into adulthood about their relationships with species different from their own kind.
Animal Liberation
Animal liberationists such as Giannetto (2013), Sanbonmatsu (2014), and Wyckoff (2014) make it clear that the relationship between humans and nonhuman animals should involve the latter’s total liberation—animals should be free from industrial settings; farms; zoos; aquariums; and in some cases, homes, to fend for themselves and enjoy their freedom from human cruelty and exploitation. In effect, animal liberationists constantly raise awareness of humanity’s cruelty towards animals and other living beings on Earth. Proponents of animal liberation write essays, scholarly articles, and books and embark on protests to affirm their position that animals must be freed from industrial and possibly home settings (Giannetto, 2013; Sanbonmatsu, 2014).
In addition, animal liberationists engage politicians and governments of all levels to press home their demands for animal liberty. There are instances where some proponents of animal liberation serve jail time (e.g., Donald Curie, the Animal Liberation Front bomber who was sentenced to jail for 12 years in England; see Addley, 2006) for what they believe are justifiable responses undertaken in defense of other beings and the planet. But again, while the efforts of such animal liberationists are important, their calls for change and related actions may do little to ameliorate the status quo without the active engagement of children in the dialogue—the same children who one day will be called upon to make decisions concerning the future of animals and the environment, be it on a local, national, or global scale.
Explaining Education
Parihar (2014) defines education as the “acquisition of knowledge and experience as well as the development of skills, habits, and attitude which helps a person to lead a full and worthwhile life in this universe” (Meaning of Education section, para. 70). Kumar and Ahmad (2007) view education as “the total development of the personality” and the accumulation “of all those experiences which affect the individual from birth till death” (p. 5). A critical look at the above definitions of education reveals that education is a life-long process of helping individuals to acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to become useful both for their own benefit as well as that of society. If education is about the total development of the whole-being, then it makes sense to integrate animal-welfare and liberation issues in the curriculum.
In line with the preceding thoughts, education should align with societal needs and aspirations; therefore, the curriculum must be proactively reviewed to reflect the changing needs of society. Progressive changes in the curriculum will enable children to learn about animal-welfare and liberation issues in a practical and timely manner (Reese, 2001; Rocheleau, 2004). This means that providers of informal and formal education should make a conscious effort to impart the values, needs, and aspirations of the society into which an individual is born.
Best (2009) and Melson (2013) remind us that these values, needs, and aspirations should include human interactions with animals because animal welfare and liberation presently are important concepts that should not be overlooked. Animals are virtually in every geographical location of the world (be they on land, in the water, or in the air); therefore, animal-welfare and liberation education should be part of every elementary school’s curriculum to promote better understanding and interaction between children and animals. The foregoing discussion on education, animal welfare, and animal liberation reveals the complexity of the relationship between humans and other sentient beings.
Introduction of Animal Studies in Preschool
Studies reveal that early childhood is the time when children interact with their environment in a more natural and organic manner (Bone, 2013; Melson, 2013). Bone (2013) and Melson (2013) maintain that parents who are not germaphobes usually allow their children to interact with the natural environment—by playing in sand, grass, and stagnant water, all the while interacting with other living organisms. Children are quick learners and are able to interpret cumbersome processes; they ask questions about things around them and explore with curiosity to find out information even when parents try to deny them access (Bone, 2013; Rice, 2014). However, while research shows that children love both domestic and wild animals, they do not connect the relationship between the animals they love and the ones on their plate, nor do they comprehend animal agriculture’s destructive effects on the environment (Melson, 2013; Rice, 2014). Rice (2014) and Rowe (2011, 2012) similarly state that while children have some knowledge about food, most of them (much like many adults) are unaware of the source of the food they consume. Rice maintains that once children actively and consciously learn about food, they will become aware of alternatives to animal products and subsequently make wise decisions regarding their dietary habits.
Beyond such dietary concerns, children should also be taught and allowed to interact in a positive and humane manner with companion and therapy animals. This can be done successfully when children receive adequate and necessary information about how the lives of animals matter as much as their own. Such education will promote respect and true friendship rather than reinforce a hierarchy in which their “friends” will be slaughtered and eaten in homes, restaurants, and schools (Malamud, 2013; Rice, 2014). The curriculum can introduce age-appropriate and honest information to children about the current state of animals’ lives, potential health implications of meat consumption, and the environmental impact of animal agriculture. Information about animals’ pain and suffering and their use as commodities, which results in the cruel treatment of industrial and domestic animals (Porcher, 2011), can be included in such a curriculum. Arguably, one of the best and most proactive ways that animal suffering and exploitation could be reduced if not eliminated is to educate humans on animal issues during childhood.
Learning about Animal Welfare and Liberation Education in a Practical Way
Homes and schools can bridge the gap between the lives of humans and nonhuman animals by taking children on field and study trips to industrial farm settings (Rowe, 2011, 2012). For example, learners can visit sanctuaries such as United Poultry Concerns, where animals are provided opportunities to eat food supplied by humans or search for their own food in their surroundings (see United Poultry Concerns, 2017). Visits to zoos, circuses, and aquariums, while opposed by many critics, may be used conversely to provide greater perspectives on animals in captivity versus those who are free to dwell in their natural environments. Safe animal watching and documentaries about animals in the wild who are not exploited by humans could also be encouraged in home and school settings. These pragmatic and proactive approaches would expose children (Dewey, 1938; Reese, 2001) to, and help them identify, differences between living free and living in captivity. Research-minded guides, keepers, teachers, and other interested and knowledgeable individuals could be on hand to answer children’s questions about issues concerning animals and provide valuable information for immediate and future processing. Inviting resource providers to share their experiences about animals in places where children assemble (e.g., schools, churches, community centers) will also help improve the relationship between humans and nonhuman animals.
Rice (2014) and Rowe (2011, 2012) argue that when children embark on field trips, they are able to learn by seeing, feeling, and smelling things in their real rather than abstract forms. Both Rice and Rowe assert that the use of visual pedagogy enriches children’s knowledge and enables them to make the necessary correlation between the meat, eggs, and animal products that humans take away from nonhuman animals and the latter’s autonomy (or lack thereof) as sentient beings. The implication is that children will grow up with a positive view of, and greater respect for, animals, which may help them make better decisions in their life-long relationships with animals. Conceivably, children’s interests in animal issues could be satisfied in a positive manner and their curiosity about animals enhanced if schools proactively discuss animal welfare, rights, and liberation with them (Danti, 2016; Foer, 2009a, 2009b).
Building a Better Rapport between Humans and Nonhuman Animals
Danti (2016), Foer (2009b), and Rice (2014) stress that children are often simply unaware of the sentient life of animals, be it their joy or suffering. Rice (2014) summarily defines ignorance as “a state in which a person lacks awareness, information, or knowledge” (p. 113), and adds that ignorance is not in itself wrong; rather, when properly handled, it could be the starting point for education. For example, Karen Davis, the founder of United Poultry Concerns and a guest speaker in a Social Justice and Animal Liberation class, responded to a question during a Q&A session concerning why people often take offense when they are referred to as animals. Davis’s response was that the people who associate bad behaviors with animals have no shame, do not know what they are talking about, and are simply ignorant (Personal communication, March 10, 2015).
Davis further stated that it’s baffling when some people refer to rapists, murderers, thieves, and other convicted criminals as “animals.” In Davis’s explanation, she asked whether animals are prone to raping, killing, stealing, or other negative behaviors attributed to humans or if instead, animals can be characterized as being affectionate, kind, and just? An analysis of Rice’s (2014) and Foer’s (2009b) work as well as Davis’s assertion about ignorance are wake-up calls for humanity to gravitate towards learning more about other species who share the same environment with humans in terms of food, space, and time.
The preceding arguments emphasize that children may later develop a better dialogue, language, and philosophy about animals when education about animals begins during childhood. When children understand in detail the lives of animals, the assumption is that cordial relationships between these sentient beings will be created to benefit all. Understanding the lives of animals may even have a greater impact on human-human relationships, because when humans accord greater respect and rights to animals, humans may see the need to bestow similar respect to their fellows, regardless of race, gender, or creed. Such human-human and human-animal respect in the end may promote more peaceful coexistence between similar and different cultures.
Sharing a Common Environment
Human beings and nonhuman animals use the bounty of the ecosystem and are united by sharing the same space and time. As Bone (2013) puts it, “the environment is never empty but is always a habitat for mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and insect life and together we are all part of the ecological systems we exist in” (p. 57). Added to this view is Melson’s (2013) assertion that “no contemporary issue is more pressing than human treatment of other species and the natural world that they all share” (p. 81). Bone and Melson remind humanity of the respect that should be accorded to other living beings and nonliving things in the environment. It is clear that humans and nonhuman animals dwell and have a stake in environments replete with resources such as food, water, air, and land; considering that humans and nonhuman animals share the same space, time, and resources, humans should critically analyze every action they take on the environment in order to preserve rather than destroy the shared ecosystem.
Ethically, humans should strive to respect other partners in the environment, for there are numerous recorded instances when humans saved animals’ lives—and vice versa (Giannetto, 2013; Melson, 2013). Not thinking about animals ultimately represents an act of selfishness and is counterintuitive to the survival of humans, because all parts of an ecosystem fulfill unique and important roles in sustaining the environment. The respectful treatment of animals across such shared space and time could strengthen the relationship between humans and nonhuman animals; however, if children are systematically denied animal-welfare and liberation education, animal cruelty will transcend the efforts of animal liberationists.
Interdependence
The lives of humans and nonhuman animals are interdependent to the extent that many hospitals, homes, and schools comprising people with disabilities rely on animals such as dogs, parrots, fish, and monkeys for therapy and comfort for patients, families, and students, respectively (Bone, 2013; Malamud, 2013). The use of animals in institutions and therapy arenas augments their programs to bring positive results to recipients (Bone, 2013; Malamud, 2013). Educating children on animal-welfare and liberation issues may be the key to strengthening the bond between humans and nonhuman animals.
Critical Animal Studies professor John Sorenson argues that “there is a lot to be said for the benefits of friendship—it is no trivial thing, regardless of whether the friend is of the same species” (Personal communication, March 3, 2015). The many pets (companion animals) and security animals who make enormous sacrifices to keep humans safe (Malamud, 2013) should remind humans that animals’ lives matter equally. Through animal-welfare and liberation education and laws that protect animals from human cruelty, humanity will adopt necessary measures to peacefully coexist with other sentient beings (Giannetto, 2013; PETA, 2017).
The numerous film documentaries that address the impact of animal agriculture on the ecosystem—notably Andersen and Kuhn’s (2014) Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret—cast a bleak view on the likely survival of the planet. Cowspiracy provides alarming statistics obtained from sources such as the UN, which the film implicates along with other designated environmental protection agencies—Greenpeace, Amazon Watch, and The Climate Reality Watch—for doing very little to protect the planet from imminent destruction by animal agriculturalists. The proactive protection of the environment should be the priority of all humankind, especially the aforementioned organizations that pride themselves on their claims to save the planet. According to Sanbonmatsu (2014), “animal agriculture destroys local habitats, pollutes water supplies, degrades the soil, leads to the razing of rainforests, and introduces virulent pathogens to the human population” (p. 1). Policy makers must invest in further research to fully comprehend the effects of animal agriculture on the environment addressed in Sanbonmatsu’s and other studies and documentaries. The findings of such research should be shared both in the home and in schools for the edification of children.
Addressing the Concerns of Animal Agriculturalists
The introduction of well-timed animal studies that include animal-welfare and liberation education could enable future generations to avoid counterproductive arguments and protracted acrimony among themselves and between individuals who may still resist notions of animal welfare and liberation. After all, how long is humanity willing to allow intolerance, greed, and the feeling of superiority over other beings to lead society to global warming, climate change, diseases, famine, and drought? Finding impartial answers to such a thought-provoking question should be the impetus to debate and challenge capitalist industrial farmers to realize that it is simply unethical to feed on the lives of other beings, all the while destroying the environment.
Although some studies indicate that industrial farmers provide enormous funding for animal welfare research (Porcher, 2011; Rice, 2014), these same sponsors may be persuaded that children ought to be exposed to animal- welfare and liberation education for the good of society. With the proper dialogue, animal farmers may shift their attention to food crop production and invest in alternatives such as plant-based foods that provide the appropriate nourishment that humans require for growth and development (Giannetto, 2013; Rice, 2014; Sanbonmatsu, 2014). Once such a goal is achieved by animal liberationists, pre- and grade-schoolers will begin to benefit tremendously from animal-welfare and liberation education, which again will help them make informed decisions about animals.
Rice (2014) and Rowe (2011, 2012) note that when children are exposed to the truth about the source of the meat they consume, they will be able to make informed choices about their relationship with animals other than those kept as companions, which ultimately improves if not changes altogether the commercial activities of corporate meat, milk, and wool producers in a peaceful, non-confrontational manner. In short, children who are exposed to honest, impartial, and quality education vis-à-vis animal agriculture—including children who may inherit such animal farms—will be more aware of the consequences of their actions and thus may choose a more responsible approach instead of perpetuating what some view as crimes against animals and the environment.
Conclusion
In line with the arguments made above, children as future decision-makers require unfettered, adequate, and truthful education about animal welfare and liberation. As Giannetto (2013) and Wyckoff (2014) suggest, children who are given the opportunity to learn how the lives of other beings matter as much as their own will develop greater compassion and respect, and most importantly, healthy human–animal relationships devoid of cruelty, domination, and exploitation. This paper has called for arming future generations with informed education and sustained insight into animal-welfare and liberation issues. The literature consulted for this paper alone provides evidence that there is a problem in the relationship between humans and nonhuman animals. Considering the commitments outlined in the UN’s Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN Division for Sustainable Development, 2015), this paper calls on governments, curriculum designers, and society in general to be pragmatic, proactive, visionary, creative, and inclusive, and to design curricula that reflect the needs and aspirations of contemporary society.
The truth about animal agriculture and the health consequences of meat consumption must be revealed to children. If society collectively wants to be healthy, inclusive, caring, impartial, and respectful, then animal-welfare and liberation education should be extended beyond the higher levels of learning—which has yet to eradicate humans’ cruelty towards nonhuman animals and remedy the destruction of the environment—so that children too can see the wrongs that must be corrected. Offering animal-welfare and liberation education in homes, schools, and other community gatherings will enlighten and enable future decision-makers to take steps to restore the broader ecosystem that humanity relies on for survival.
To reiterate Danti’s (2016) and Foer’s (2009a, 2009b) position, inadequate knowledge about animal-welfare and liberation education during childhood presents enormous challenges in adulthood. Learning about animal welfare and liberation in childhood is not only warranted but is also an ethical duty that society owes to its children. Children should know the source of the food they eat, the clothes they wear, and any other animal-based commodities found in their homes. Society will benefit positively when children are included in animal-welfare and liberation education, because such education is after all the key to helping children make informed choices for themselves, other people, animals, and the environment in general.
Limitations of the Study and Future Research
The arguments presented in this paper are mainly supported by secondary data. This approach means that further research may benefit from a qualitative research approach encompassing child participants in order to ascertain the merits of the assumptions made. Future research should consider investigating the changes in attitudes of children who are introduced to animal-welfare and liberation education over a period of time.
References
Addley, E. (2006). Animal Liberation Front bomber jailed for 12 years. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/dec/08/animalrights.uknews.
Agriculture Victoria. (2016, October 10). Australian animal welfare standards and guidelines. Retrieved from http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/agriculture/animal-health-and-welfare/australian-animal-welfare-standards-and-guidelines.
Aguirre, V., & Orihuela, A. (2010). Assessment of the impact of an animal welfare educational course with first grade children in rural schools in the state of Morelos, Mexico. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38(1), 27-31. doi:10.1007/s10643-010-0384-2.
Andersen, K., & Kuhn, K. (Producers & Directors). (2014). Cowspiracy: The sustainability secret [Motion picture]. United States: A.U.M. Films/First Spark Media.
Ascione, F. R., & Weber, C. V. (1996). Children’s attitudes about the humane treatment of animals and empathy: One-year follow up of a school-based intervention. Anthrozoos, 9(4), 188-195. doi:10.2752/089279396787001455.
Best, S. (2009). The rise of critical animal studies: Putting theory into action and animal liberation into higher education. Journal for Critical Animal Studies, 7(1), 9-52. Retrieved from http://www.criticalanimalstudies.org/volume-vii-issue-i-2009/.
Bone, J. (2013). The animal as fourth educator: A literature review of animals and young children in pedagogical relationships. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 38(2), 57-64.
Campbell, T. C., & Campbell, T. M. (2005). The China study. Dallas, TX: BenBella Books.
Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. (n.d.). About us. Retrieved from http://www.cfhs.ca/about_us.
Compassionate Action Institute. (2000). About us. Retrieved from http://www.pleasebekind.com/aboutus.html.
Danti, M. (2016, February 17). Black vegans rock [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.blackvegansrock.com/blog/2016/2/17/feature-mohammad-danti-square-de-med.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Farm Animal Rights Movement. (n.d.). Our mission and values. Retrieved from http://www.farmusa.org/index.php/who-we-are/our-mession-and-values.html.
Foer, J. S. (2009a, October 11). Against meat. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/magazine/11foer-t.html?_r=1.
Foer, J. S. (2009b). Eating animals. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company.
Fraser, D. (2008). Understanding animal welfare. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 50(Suppl. 1). doi:10.1186/1751-0147-50-S1-S1.
Giannetto, E. R. A. (2013). Notes for a metamorphosis. Society & Animals, 23(1), 75-89. doi:10.1163/15685306-12341256.
Haynes, R. P. (2011). Competing conceptions of animal welfare and their ethical implications for the treatment of non-human animals. Acta Biotheoretica, 59(2), 105-120. doi:10.1007/s10441-0119124-2.
Kumar, S., & Ahmad, S. (2007). Meaning, aims, and process of education. Delhi, India: University of Delhi. Retrieved from https://sol.du.ac.in/solsite/Courses/UG/StudyMaterial/16/Part1/ED/English/SM-1.pdf.
Malamud, R. (2013). Service animals: Serve us animals: Serve us, animals. Social Alternatives, 32(4), 34-40. Retrieved from http://www.english.gsu.edu/files/2015/06/services_animals.pdf.
McGlone, J. J. (1993). What is animal welfare? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 6(Suppl. 2), 26-36.
Melson, G. F. (2013). Children’s ideas about the moral standing and social welfare of non-human species. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 40(4), 81-106.
Nicoll, K., Trifone, C., & Samuels, W. E. (2008). An in-class, humane education program can improve young students’ attitudes towards animals. Society & Animals, 16(1), 45-60. doi:10.1163/156853008X269881.
Parihar, R. (2014, October 18). Concept of education [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://pariharraj.wordpress.com/2014/10/18/78/.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. (2017). TeachKind: PETA’s humane- education division. Retrieved from http://www.peta.org/teachkind/.
PETA Kids. (2017). Save animals. Retrieved from http://www.petakids.com/save-animals/.
Porcher, J. (2011). The relationship between workers and animals in the pork industry: A shared suffering. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 24(1), 3-17. doi:10.1007/s10806-010-9232-z.
Reese, W. J. (2001). The origins of progressive education. History of Education Quarterly, 41(1), 1-24. doi:10.1111/j.1748-5959.2001.tb00072.x.
Rice, S. (2014). Three educational problems: The case of eating animals. Journal of Thought, 48(2), 112-127. Retrieved from http://journalofthought.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/12rice.pdf.
Rocheleau, J. (2004). Theoretical roots of service-learning: Progressive education and the development of citizenship. In B. Speck & S. Hoppe (Eds.), Service-learning: History, theory, and issues (pp. 3-21). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Rowe, B. D. (2011). Understanding animals-becoming-meat: Embracing a disturbing education. Critical Education, 2(7), 1-25. Retrieved from http://ices.library.ubc.ca/index.php/criticaled/article/view/182311.
Rowe, B. D. (2012). Food, habit, and the consumption of animals as educational encounter. In C. W. Ruitenberg (Ed.), Philosophy of education 2012 (pp. 210-218). Urbana, IL: Philosophy of Education Society.
Sanbonmatsu, J. (2014). The animal of bad faith: Speciesism as an existential project. In J. Sorenson (Ed.), Critical animal studies: Thinking the unthinkable (pp. 29-45). Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholars’ Press.
Shapiro, K., & DeMello, M. (2010). The state of human-animal studies. Society & Animals, 18(3), 307-318. doi:10.1163/156853010X510807.
Sinha, R., Cross, A. J., Graubard, B. I., Leitzmann, M. F., & Schatzkin, A. (2009). Meat intake and mortality: A prospective study of over half a million people. Archives of Internal Medicine, 169(6), 562-571. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.6.
United Nations, Division for Sustainable Development. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld.
United Poultry Concerns. (2017). About united poultry concerns. Retrieved from http://www.upc-online.org/more_about_upc.html.
Vegan Outreach. (2014). Mission. Retrieved from http://veganoutreach.org/mission/.
World Health Organization. (2015, October 29). Links between processed meat and colorectal cancer: WHO statement. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2015/processed-meat-cancer/en/.
Wyckoff, J. (2014). Toward justice for animals. Journal of Social Philosophy, 45(4), 539-553. doi:10.111/josp.12077.
