54 / Chapter 2
nies that breed, feed, and slaughter the animals own them, but the
grower has the role, though temporary, of a steward. During Hurri-
cane Katrina, one grower expressed concern over the birds’ welfare,
and workers were willing to handle the birds more humanely—at
least in the presence of the rescuers. In the end, however, growers
and workers were subject to the policies of the poultry companies.
I argue that the “solution” to disasters involving farmed animals
does not involve rescuing as many as possible, although some res-
cue will occasionally have to take place. Rescue is a necessary and
noble task, but the solution lies in another direction. It involves
curtailing and eventually ending the perverse industrial farming
practices that make animals so vulnerable. This is not a radical pro-
posal. Intensive production methods, along with farm bills that
favor large operations and federal subsidies for feed crops, have
stoked Americans’ appetites for animal products and kept meat,
dairy, and egg prices low. But consumers have grown increasingly
aware of and concerned for the welfare of animals and the quality
of the food they eat. In one major survey, 79 percent said that farm
animals have the right to be treated humanely.^27 In another survey,
68 percent agreed that the government should take an active role
in promoting farm animal welfare, and 75 percent said they would
support laws requiring farmers to treat animals more humanely.^28
Consumers have already infl uenced many producers to adopt more
humane farming practices. Thus, the task for the management of
disasters is to encourage measures that reduce animals’ vulnera-
bility without eliminating animal agriculture altogether. Recent
reports from the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Pro-
duction and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) offer some
concrete recommendations. Although their analyses did not specif-
ically address disasters, the reports conclude that our current sys-
tem of production harms not only animals but also public health
and human communities. Consequently, the fi ndings have practi-
cal implications for reducing the impact of disasters on animals and
people.
In sum, both reports promote more sustainable animal agri-
culture, which is by defi nition safer for people and animals than