Day 114 - 04 Apr 95 - Page 72


     
     1        I would not -- if I use the word "improved" it sounds as
     2        if, perhaps, it is good.  It is not a word I would use.  I
     3        do not want to have words put in my mouth.  I would still
     4        think that it needs further reform, but it has been, if you
     5        like, it has been improved to some extent which indicates
     6        that it had shortcomings before.
     7
     8   Q.   What is the number of pigs, do you think, in the last 44
     9        years, or whatever it is, maybe longer, 50, I do not know,
    10        that you have seen stunned and killed?
    11        A.  That would be a greater number.
    12
    13   Q.   Roughly?
    14        A.  I suppose two or three hundred.
    15
    16   Q.   Is there any form, any method, of killing animals for human
    17        consumption that you would find acceptable?
    18        A.  No, I would not because I do not believe in killing
    19        things if they are enjoying a life.  If you did have a
    20        caveat in what you said.  Of course, if you were dealing
    21        with animals like stray dogs, you would use an injection or
    22        you would do this with a casualty animal.
    23
    24   Q.   I did say for human consumption.  We do not normally eat
    25        dogs in this country.
    26        A.  No, but I think there is a very strong welfare matter
    27        there because the animal is having to undergo a less
    28        satisfactory process because it has been sacrificed to the
    29        plate.  I think that is an important part for us
    30        welfarists, that it is commercial considerations that
    31        override the essentials of welfare.
    32
    33   Q.   Do you accept then that where humans choose to raise and
    34        kill animals for food there is, of necessity, a compromise
    35        to be sought?
    36        A.  My attitude is while this goes on animal welfarists
    37        must do their best.  I myself have reacted because, with
    38        the evidence that I have seen, I am not satisfied that it
    39        is a method based on welfare, and so I do not have any
    40        complicity with it.  I do not eat meat and I do not use
    41        dairy produce.
    42
    43   Q.   But you never would, would you?
    44        A.  Well, I used to once upon a time.
    45
    46   Q.   No, I mean now you never would?
    47        A.  Well, no, not unless I could be persuaded that it was a
    48        satisfactory process.
    49
    50   Q.   In your mind, it is not satisfactory simply because they 
    51        are animals; is that not right? 
    52        A.  Not at all.  It is because I regard it as an affront to 
    53        human dignity to inflict this sort of fate on animals.
    54        I actually used to like the taste of meat, I used to like
    55        the taste of cheese as well, but I think that we have the
    56        wit and resource to get round this.  It is unnecessary
    57        cruelty and, as I say, it is an affront to the dignity of
    58        our own species.
    59
    60   Q.   Just two other things, Dr. Long, before we go away to meet

Prev Next Index