Words matter: implications of semantics and imagery in framing animal-welfare issues

As criticisms of contemporary farm-animal production escalate, scholars have begun to scrutinize the imagery and linguistic techniques used to frame animal issues and their implications. Pro-animal rights groups typically present animal use as unnecessary, oppressive, and exploitive and adopt themes of compassion and protection to engage the public. In contrast, anti-animal rights groups represent animal use as necessary for human benefit and often situate animal and human interests as being incompatible. Overly simplistic, polarized representations of animal issues therefore emerge. Several analyses, however, have indicated that the discourse on farm-animal production fails to either make a compelling ethical argument for animal agriculture or address the ethical concerns raised by animal-rights activists. Proponents of animal agriculture are argued to consistently misrepresent animal production practices and portray animals as inanimate objects, reflecting lack of genuine concern for animal suffering or welfare. Thus far, the veterinary community has escaped this level of scrutiny. However, veterinarians are often viewed as being connected to animal agriculture. As veterinarians strive to assume leadership in animal welfare, it is useful for the profession to recognize that, as is the case for members of the animal sciences and industries, some aspects of its discourse may contradict its professed values and beliefs about animal care and welfare. Analysis of this discourse affords the opportunity to more effectively engage with the public on animal-welfare issues and to develop a compelling narrative of the role of animals in an increasingly urban society.