Grumpy Vegan

First it was those pesky “animal extremists.” Then it was turning the switch on in favor of nuclear power. And now it’s mass deportations of illegal immigrants. Desperate measures for a man in desperate times? Probably. But are there important consequences for animal advocates? Absolutely.

Let’s start first with a quick assessment. The annual number of animals used in research in Britain declined by nearly one-half from 5.327 million in 1973 to 2.854 million in 2004. The use of chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans is banned as is research for the testing of cosmetics, tobacco and alcohol. But to say that Britain’s Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is the toughest law of its kind is akin to claiming that a MacDonald’s veggie burger is the best that vegan cuisine can offer. Groups like the BUAV routinely expose the act’s failures.

As BUAV’s campaigns organizer, I fought vigorously against the Conservative government’s mid-1980’s proposals to replace the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. But it would even bring a smile to this grumpy vegan’s face if the U.S. Congress were to adopt legislation modeled after the 1986 Act. U.S. public policy on animal research is shockingly inadequate. This is particularly worrisome given the U.S.’s leading role in the use of animals in research, testing and education.

How should animal advocates interpret Tony Blair’s recent declaration of support for “properly regulated medical research”? “Prime ministers don’t often sign public petitions,” he writes. “After all, they usually either criticize the Government or demand priority treatment for a specific cause.” Blair gives the usual arguments why animal research is necessary. He cites his government’s above-mentioned accomplishments. But the reason why he is speaking out is because of the “campaign of intimidation – which include grave-robbing – [which] show the depths to which the animal extremists are prepared to stoop.”

In short, Blair joined the pro-vivisection backlash that is now underway in Britain. A backlash precipitated by a 16-year-old school drop-out, Laurie Pycroft. Since forming Pro-Test, there’s been a series of pro-research demonstrations featuring Pycroft and the launch of The People’s Petition.

This impetus in support of animal research has the media’s attention. They’ve latched onto Pycroft and the petition and the increasing numbers of scientists who are now emboldened to speak out behind a teenager’s back.

But what caused the backlash in the first place? Was it the anti-vivisection message or how the message was made? It seems to me that stealing the body of Gladys Hammond, a close relative of the Hall family who ran the farm that raised guinea pigs for research, was, well, the final nail in the coffin.

I know all too well the arguments made in support of such actions as these and others: “Animal cruelty justifies any act in the name of animal liberation.” But I ground my advocacy for animals in four principles: nonviolence, compassion, truth and interbeing—the interrelatedness of all. Clearly, grave-robbing an 82-year-old grandmother is impossible to justify.

And that’s why the backlash is underway.