SPEAKER 1: All right, everybody.
We're going to get started here.
Thanks for showing up today.
Got a good talk today
protecting animals
within and across borders
with Charlotte Blattner, who
is one of our
visiting researchers
here at the Animal Law
and Policy Program.
And Professor Stilt, who is the
faculty director of the Animal
Law and Policy
Program, is going to--
after a short
presentation-- engage
Charlotte in a conversation
about some of these issues.
One more thing I
want to point out.
On Wednesday we will be
having Jonathan Lovehorn
come do a couple events.
He's going to be giving a
lunchtime lecture in B010
and then doing a coffee at
noon and then doing a coffee
chat at 3:30 in another.
You can go either
to the AOPP website.
OK--
SPEAKER 2: 3015.
SPEAKER 1: 3015 is the
coffee chat at 3:30.
And Jonathan Lovehorn has taught
several of our courses here,
both our wildlife law course
and our farmed animal law
and policy course.
But with that, I will turn
it over to Professor Stilt.
KRISTEN STILT: All right, thank
you, Chris, for introducing us.
I'm very happy to be conversing
with Charlotte over this really
magnificent book.
And there's a lot
to cover here, and I
think our goal is that
you want to dig deeper
into the book as a result
of our conversation.
We're not starting
from the assumption
that you've already
read the book
and we're here to discuss
it assuming that background.
So, I think Charlotte's
going to start
with a few minutes of
just laying the foundation
and then we'll have a
conversation about it.
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER: Great.
Thank you so much for
the kind introduction.
Can you hear me?
KRISTEN STILT: Yeah, again.
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER: Better now?
KRISTEN STILT: That's great.
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER: Perfect.
So, again, thank you so much
for the kind introduction.
And I just can't
express my gratitude
to you, Professor Kristen
Stilt, and the entire Animal Law
and Policy Program
for hosting the event
and for having me as
a visiting lecturer.
Being part of the
program and having
been able to watch the program
grow has been [INAUDIBLE]..
He is like, you move
into the new office
space or the ever-growing number
of very competent and creative
people have [INAUDIBLE].
So, thank you so much for
letting me be part of this.
KRISTEN STILT: Well,
thanks for being with us.
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER: So, I began
my own journey like many of you
do probably now--
studying law in the hopes that
this would open up many career
options, secure a safe income.
And more importantly to me,
and hopefully to many of you
too, contribute to
making the world
a better place for animals.
I began to read a couple
of papers and books,
attended a few conferences
here and there,
and listened to the concerns
that scholars raised.
I then turned to the numbers.
I began to see that the
manufacture and consumption
of animal products
has literally exploded
within the last decade.
So, we can see this
here at the development
of meat supply per person on a
global scale from 1961 to 2013.
Deep red are the states
that consume the most.
The same is true when it
comes to the production
and consumption of dairy,
here also from 1961 to 2013.
So, to meet this rising
demand for animal products
there is a vast complex of
multibillion dollar industries
that now produce animal products
not locally within the confines
of each state, but globally.
Between 1986 and 2016 the
world's population doubled.
But trade in eggs, meat, and
dairy increased threefold.
As a result, there
is now a dense web
of economic activities in
breeding, cage systems, feed,
veterinary practices,
technologies, slaughter,
packaging, and distribution.
Corporations mainly owe
duties to their shareholders.
So, they're prone to using
free market and global markets
to further their
financial interests.
So, for example, pigs
are moved across borders
so companies can profit
from cheap slaughter.
Fish cages are relocated
across territorial seas
to evade regulation.
Sheep are transported
by the millions
so producers can benefit from
business friendly climates,
and so are cows.
And finally, monkeys
are relocated
so breeders and research
institutions are not burdened
by regulatory requirements.
These entwined
economic activities
have led states to
compete with each other
in order to attract and retain
manufacturers and investors.
And they do so
not by increasing,
but by lowering their
standards of animal law.
In this regulatory
competition, the state
with the lowest
standards wins simply
because it attracts
the most capital.
This race to the bottom
is a common phenomenon
in the context of labor,
environmental protection,
human rights law, et cetera.
But as I show in the book, it
also is at work in animal law.
Now, the race to
the bottom, I fear,
has consequences for
states within their borders
because it undermines their
efforts to accurately uphold
laws that protect animals, even
on their domestic territory.
For instance, the US in 2006
prohibited governmental funding
for federal inspectors
of horse meat.
Without inspectors, the
institutions that slaughter
horses cannot legally
run their business.
So, the funding ban
effectively resulted in a ban
on horse slaughter.
A year later in
reaction to the ban,
the number of exports of
horse slaughter to Mexico
increased by 312 percent.
In other words, the entire
horse slaughter industry
was effectively
outsourced to Mexico.
Now, because of this
more and more people
wanted the ban to
be reversed-- even
those advocating
for horse slaughter.
Their main claim
was that US laws
intended to protect
animals have not helped,
but actually failed animals--
precisely because
of globalization.
These dynamics, as I
look at it in the book,
are practically ubiquitous
across the world,
especially when it comes
to commercial use animals.
Be it efforts to ban
research on animals,
calls for bigger or no cages,
or bans on male chick shredding,
states funded unnecessary
even counter-productive
to enact stricter laws
if borders remain open.
This is detrimental, because
the lowest level of animal law
anywhere in the world ends
up defining and anchoring
all global efforts
to protect animals.
My first hunch was
actually, that we
could solve this problem
simply by setting up
an international treaty.
Since there is no international
treaty that is currently
enforced that expresses a
uniform commitment of states
to recognize animal sentience,
to pay [INAUDIBLE] cruelty
against animals, to
prevent their suffering,
the demand humane treatment
or actually lay down
rule books rights for animals.
We simply need to
create just that.
But as I dug deeper, I began to
realize that creating a treaty
is first, unlikely
and second, unhelpful.
Agreement is unlikely, because
producers and consumers
are unevenly distributed
in the world.
So, some states will always want
to under-regulate while others
will tend to over-regulate.
Agreement is also
unhelpful, because it
tends to converge to the
lowest common denominator
and as such, will undermine
efforts to increase
the global level of animal law.
This is, in essence,
a prisoner's dilemma.
States could reap great benefits
if they cooperated on matters
of animal law, but they
refuse to do it or fail
to do it because they find
it difficult or expensive
or because they are afraid
of free rate riders.
So, what's the way out?
In the book, I explore
the law of jurisdiction
as a tool to change the
dynamics of animal law
for the better, both
nationally and globally.
Two tasks led the
heart of this book.
The first was to
gain legal certainty
about how states could
protect animals better
within their border
in cases where
there is a wealth of
cross-border relationships.
The second task was to explore
reasonable ways for states
to protect animals
across the border.
So, one central hypothesis of
the book was that the factual
entanglement of
people, property,
and commerce cannot be sorted
out if we rely on states
to meticulously apply their
animal laws on the next state
territory.
Factual entanglement,
in other words,
calls for legal entanglement.
And that is extraterritorial
jurisdiction.
Extraterritorial
jurisdiction is,
as I use it in the
book, a state's power
to prescribe its own laws across
the border to people, events,
or property secured
in their own.
It can be indirect in
nature or it can be direct.
And, by the way, there's no need
to understand this structure
right now.
We might come back to
this in our conversation.
So, under international
law for example,
direct extraterritorial
jurisdiction
can be exercised by
states by invoking
so-called jurisdictional
principles.
For example, the active
personality principle
gives states jurisdiction
over their natural and legal
persons, or nationals,
wherever they are.
So, I for example,
am a Swiss national,
but I reside in the US.
If I commit treason, engage
in subversive propaganda,
or commit human trafficking
Switzerland will and can
exercise jurisdiction over me.
The same can be
done in animal law.
Anyone engaging in, for example,
illegal trophy hunting abroad
can, at least under
international law,
be subjected to their
home state jurisdiction.
And this principle, I
think, is very useful
when we apply to
corporations, for example.
So, you can use the active
personality principle
to cover actions of corporations
abroad or in branches
and under certain circumstances,
even for your subsidiaries.
So, in some extraterritorial
jurisdiction
is widely used in criminal law,
commerce, banking, antitrust,
and human rights law.
We're basically revolutionized
the entire field.
Similarly, I believe
we can and must
play a key role in triggering
better protections for animals.
So, this is just
a brief overview
of what motivations
drive the book
and what its main goals are.
I'm more than
excited to now begin
a conversation with
Professor Stilt
about international
actions, the use of animals,
and the role of law in it.
Those of you who have taken
animal law with her last spring
knows that she's a
tremendous expert
on all matters of international
and comparative and law.
And she has rich activities
in the field when
it comes to life animal expert.
So, I'm very, very thankful
to her and more than thrilled
to have this
conversation with her.
KRISTEN STILT: We're thankful
for you for writing this book.
[APPLAUSE]
So, let's just begin
a little deeper
on some of the fundamentals
that underlie the book.
So, the subtitle:
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
and the Challenges
of Globalization.
Can you say a little more about
where globalization fits in?
Is it about the
increased consumption,
which you've shown us?
It's about more
than that, right?
What does globalization
mean for you?
And what does it mean for
the protection of animals?
What is the challenge that
globalization confronts us
with?
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER:
Globalization, one extent of it
as you mentioned, was that
we have many more people
on this planet than
when most of the states
actually enacted
their animal laws.
The US, I believe, did the
Animal Welfare Act in 1966.
So, there are more challenges
to that right now as more people
consume animal products.
But a main problem
with globalization
is that the production
simply moves to the state
where the lowest
standards prevail.
And the problem with that
is corporations, especially
multinationals, have
so much economic power
that states actually try
to attract their attention
and have them within
their own countries
because they're, to
them, valuable taxpayers.
So, states actually often
bow to these economic powers.
If you think about
multinationals,
some have more revenues
than some states have,
than some states' GDP.
So, they have tremendous
leveraging power
negotiating acting
laws or forcing states
to create an environment that
is conducive to corporations.
KRISTEN STILT: Can
you give an example?
So, we're talking
about factory farming
in the US on the decline
because factory farming
and other jurisdictions with
even less legal infrastructure
than us is more attractive?
Give us some examples
of what this looks like.
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER: Yeah.
So, in the book I use four
cases that I kind of want to see
whether what I propose
actually plays out.
So, I look at outsourcing
as one example.
And that's mainly
the case when it
comes to animals who are used
in agricultural research.
Then we have trophy hunting
as a way in which individuals
use or exploit animal law abroad
to profit from lax regulations
and engage in activities
that might be, or often are,
prohibited in their home states.
I looked at migration
as another example,
and trade more generally.
So, let's say legal trophy
hunting as an example.
A US national, I think,
about two or three years ago
made headlines as he killed
Cecil the lion in Zimbabwe.
And everyone was distraught to
hear about this, because Cecil
played an important role in--
he was claimed to contribute
to ecosystem services.
He played an important
part in the community.
He was part of the field
study, an important one,
to study the movement
of lions and their role
in the broader community.
So, he was shot.
And the way he was
shot-- he was kind of
blurred out of the cat hunting
environment that he was in.
Anyway, scholars proposed
quite creative ways
of how to tackle the situation.
For example, by using
private international law,
certain elements in trade law.
But in fact, I believe at
least under international law,
there's a much more direct
and immediate way to do that.
Mainly, he was a US national.
So, technically if US
Congress decided to do that,
he would actually
apply animal law
to this person who was
legally hunting abroad.
KRISTEN STILT: OK, so
the globalization angle
is more people
traveling to do things
that are not permissible
in their own country.
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER: And there's
corporate elements to that.
There's actions of
individual people to that.
There's the trade
element to that.
Trade in products or
live animals as well.
So, yeah.
Many dimensions that
it tries to follow.
KRISTEN STILT: OK, so let's talk
about this proposal you just
had of having US law
apply to the hunter.
So, let's take a step
back and ask ourselves--
how likely is that?
That US legal system,
our government,
would enact such a law?
And I think maybe
to answer that,
could you give us a sense
of when do we see that?
You mention the Swiss
law on terrorism,
but can you give
us some examples
from the US perspective?
When do we impose our
law upon the actions
outside the borders?
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER: That's
a really good question.
And the US is,
interestingly enough,
well known internationally
to be really aggressive
when it comes to applying
laws extraterritorially,
even enforcing them
on foreign territory.
And I'm not even talking about
this dimension in the book.
I'm only talking about ways
in which states can apply laws
extraterritorially.
So, the US did that
in the 1960s and 70s
quite aggressively when
it came to antitrust law.
And there were huge
international disputes
as to would that be legitimate?
How and why does it
potentially violate
principles of international
law, or territorial integrity
of other states?
And the US has developed
principles of how to do that.
The principle of reasonableness
and [INAUDIBLE],, et cetera
to deal with that.
But it's an interesting
question to ask, why has it
not done so in other areas?
It's quite restrictive when
it comes to labor laws,
for example.
It's restrictive when it comes
to environmental protection.
ESA is one example of those.
And it will also be when
it comes to animal laws.
So, the book-- and that is
a notable limitation of it--
mainly looks at it from an
international perspectives.
As to say, from
international law perspective
this is totally legal.
What you as a domestic
legislator do,
this is of the
UN, has to be part
of a multi-sided conversation
within the state.
International law does
not, at least left under
international law, oblige
states to protect animals
across the border.
It does so when it comes to
human rights law, for example
right now.
KRISTEN STILT: So, you've given
examples from criminal law,
for example.
Maybe say a little more about
that to give us more context.
When would it be the case
that an American citizen?
I'm trying to analogize
our best case scenario.
What's the best case
we can make to extend
American law outside
the territory,
or any other law
outside of the territory
to protect the animals?
In the American case,
give us an example
of maybe criminal laws--
times in which, if you
commit a crime outside the US
you're still liable
under US law.
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER: I don't
know how the case is exactly
under US American law.
But most states do in fact
criminalize their nationals
if they go abroad, move, or
reside there and, for example,
engage in human trafficking.
Or they engage in pedophile
actions, for example.
Then the home state jurisdiction
will apply those laws,
no matter whether it's legal or
illegal in the state in which
those actions have taken place.
And so criminal
law is very useful
when it comes to
individual actions.
Less so, but
increasingly more, when
it comes to corporate
actions because
of corporate criminal
Latin-American tensions
on the rise.
KRISTEN STILT: So,
what's the gap between?
You've given us antitrust,
maybe on the corporate level,
or engaging in sex trafficking
on an individual level
and protection of the animals.
How far is the
gap between those?
What do we need to
do to get this closer
to the successful examples
that you've given?
Do you see that
as a possibility?
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER:
Yeah, definitely.
I think there's lots of gaps.
In a sense, the scheme
that I establish
could be applied today.
Every state could.
Where there is a
reasonable link between it
and the state of
facts abroad, it
could do that-- just apply
those laws extraterritorially.
The question is, is it
useful and will it do so?
I believe in the US that
has comparatively very
low standards of animal law,
applying it extraterritorially
will not be very helpful.
Or, in the worst
case, it will actually
be used to oppress minorities.
So, you have a fantastic
piece on protections
it has in India are
not actually about cows
and they're not actually
about protections.
So, many animal laws
as they today exist
are at the very,
very low standard.
I have quite critical views
in the book about this.
And I think applying
this across the border
prematurely will not be useful.
At worst, it will
oppress minorities
and it will just
claim that the US
ways of how raise or
slaughter animals will simply
be imposed upon people, without
actually helping the animals.
KRISTEN STILT: So,
let's be clear.
From a US perspective,
that would only
happen if there was some
nexus to the US, right?
If we had an American
citizen or a corporation
domiciled in the US.
Those are the entities
or the individuals
that the extraterritorial
application would apply to.
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER:
Those are two examples.
And that's discipline
personality principles,
but there's many more.
An effect principle is another
example which can be done.
So, actions abroad that have
an effect within the US--
KRISTEN STILT: Done by anyone.
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER: No,
they have to be substantial.
There's requirements as to what
the nature of those effects
have to be.
There has to be a certain
threshold that has to be met.
So, that's one example.
Then there's the
universality principle.
So, for example, acts that
are so egregious that they
shock the world community.
We know that for many acts that
are committed against humans,
but the same could
be invoked also
when it comes to animals
under certain circumstances.
KRISTEN STILT: But
just to be clear,
we're talking about potentially
one country attempting
to regulate the
actions everywhere
else in the world, whether done
by their own citizens or not.
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER: When it
comes to the effect of the--
KRISTEN STILT: Yes.
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER:
--universality principle?
Yes.
Those can be quite
excessive, and I put up
some safety measures to ensure
that it does not go overboard.
But there's a certain duty.
I believe there's also a
danger in not doing anything
as we do right now,
because most states,
as soon as one cross-border
relationship is included
in any state of facts, they
have a hands off approach.
They're like, we don't
know what to do with this
because our animal welfare acts
in limited territorial scope.
So, we have no idea what to do.
And most often they
just simply claim,
this would violate
international law
and that's where
the book kicks in.
KRISTEN STILT: To show
that you have the power.
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER: Yeah.
It's not the case.
KRISTEN STILT: So,
let's come back
around to what are the negative
potential effects that you
mentioned.
But just as a practical
matter, how do we
get from here to there?
How do we get countries-- maybe
the countries with the best
laws--
to start to think about
extraterritorial application?
What are the political
impediments to doing that?
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER:
Political impediments, I
believe one of the biggest
ones is positively formulated.
There is a need to educate
a lot of politicians
about the limits
of their actions
under international law,
because most of them
will actually just invoke that.
They will either say it will
violate international law if we
claim jurisdiction of this
case or they will claim,
well, production will
simply move outside.
And this is really problematic
both from an animal's
perspective, because they're
not regulated at all.
And it's problematic from
a democratic perspective,
because many citizens
actually want
stronger and more
effective animal laws,
yet their states are not pushing
through precisely because
of those economic dimensions.
Or because they claim that
international law forbids them
from acting.
KRISTEN STILT: Right, so once
you get past that hurdle,
once you educate the populations
that you can do this.
What's the obstacle
to actually doing it?
Is it going to be
a lack of will?
Or, well, simply
animal abuse does not
rise to the level of these other
categories like sex trafficking
or piracy?
Or is it going to be
some other reason?
What are the real,
tangible obstacles
to getting animal
protection included
in that very special basket
of areas in which states
regulate outside their borders?
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER:
That's a good question.
I believe two steps
are necessary for this.
One is to actually educate
the public as a whole
about the effects of
our actions on animals.
While we may not think that
our actions against animals
are as bad as, for example,
human trafficking--
if you ask the
animals, this situation
might be judged by
them very differently.
Of course, law is
a tool for humans
to regulate their own
social economic environment.
But if we think
about all others,
we might want to push
further and think
about how our actions affect
them and how it feels for them.
And the second point, I think,
which is a real obstacle
is that many states actually
have some of the highest
standards in the world.
Any state is
against outsourcing,
because they pay for it.
It will move abroad
and then animals
will be slaughtered without
any laws applying to them.
They will be raised
in conditions
where there are no laws at all,
even though themselves do not
have critical engagement
of what they do to animals
and an understanding that most
of the laws that we have right
now are not actually
about protecting
animals, but protecting
our use of animals.
So, I think the real obstacle
is getting states and the public
to confront that reality.
KRISTEN STILT: So,
you raise the idea
that there could be
negative consequences.
Some of the words that you
used are cultural imperialism
and neo colonialism.
So, let's take an example of
a hypothetical country that
has the best standards
anywhere in the world
and that country decides
to really embrace
this extraterritorial
jurisdiction idea
and impose its laws everywhere
it sees a violation.
Is that a good thing?
Is that a bad thing?
What are the costs and benefits
of that kind of action?
Could it have an unintended
negative consequences?
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER: Oh, yeah,
many negative consequences.
To put a bracket before that--
a state applying its laws
anywhere in the world
is practically unknown.
So, I put on safety
measures and requirements
for universality [INAUDIBLE].
So, usually under
international law,
the requirement is that there is
a reasonable link to the state
and that the state
does not apply the laws
with ulterior motives of
self-negating minority groups,
for example.
But this can be
difficult to prove.
We have to look at
debates in Parliament,
et cetera to actually verify
the reasons for which system.
Then, I believe the main clashes
or obstacles that can emerge
is that we only apply punctually
to people on other territory
while not in the same.
So, for example,
it's quite likely
that a state feels like
we have to do this.
One example is, I believe
Belgium or the Netherlands,
actually had brothels with
animals that were legal
for quite some time.
And they actually
led to almost a sex
tourism when it came to animal
international sex tourism.
So, in a sense, we
could say let's just
apply our laws
extraterritorially
to all those nationals
that visit those brothels.
And then let's just do it with
regard to dogs, for example.
If we don't care about
the cows, et cetera.
We don't care about sheep.
We don't care about
factory farming, et cetera.
So, this can be seen as being
very, very narrowly tied
to the state's interests,
not thinking about.
And it could in effect,
affect certain minority groups
that feel oppressed.
So, I call for more
consistency and coherence--
both in terms of which animals
are being covered, which
actions are being covered.
Call for good faith
application of using
animal law across
the border, but also
a really critical
view of states when
it comes to their own laws.
KRISTEN STILT: So,
thinking carefully about
whether these laws apply,
as we might want to happen
within the current system.
So, you talk a lot
about trade in the book.
Could you give us an overview
on trade law and animal law?
You say for decades,
scholars have
debated is the World Trade
Organization good for animals
or not good for animals?
Where does trade fit
in all of this for you?
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER: The
World Trade Organization
has been immensely important
for animal advocates
on the international scale,
because animals are still
being seen as property and as
such, they're widely traded.
The World Trade Organization
was set up with the belief
that liberalization of trade
would bring about global wealth
welfare.
Wealth for individuals,
jobs for people,
increase GDP, et cetera.
Right now, there's
a lively debate
on whether that has
actually happened or not.
But when it comes
to animals and how
trade has affected
their interests,
that's not discussed
at all and it
doesn't factor into their
judgment of whether WTO
has overall been useful or not.
But when we look at
the effects of trade
from the animal law
perspective, it's
been extremely problematic.
Animal law usually sets
up regulatory requirements
and those regulatory
requirements usually
limit trade flows.
So, generally, animal
law and trade law
are seen as being at
odds with one another.
In the book, I
take several steps
to actually dispel this myth.
Shall I talk more
about how I did it?
KRISTEN STILT: Do you want to
talk about one of the cases
you think best exemplifies that
trade law can be protective?
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER: It's more
from a conceptual perspective,
but can be applied
to numerous cases.
So, when we go back to the
indirect extraterritorial
jurisdiction, most states that
are affected by trade bans say,
the other states simply want
to tell us what we should do
and how we should
produce animals.
So, they basically
claim that this
is a form of direct
extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Direct would mean that
it regulates content
extraterritorially.
That would be this part.
KRISTEN STILT: So,
let's say if you
want to sell your eggs here,
they have to be cage free.
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER: Yeah, that
would be a trade ban, right?
But people say, well you
tell us right now how
we should raise hens, whether
we should use battery cages
or free range methods.
So, what I show is
that it's not actually
about regulating content
extraterritorially,
but those laws actually
regulate content territorially.
So, most of the trade
bans are in fact
about protecting people from
being exposed to products
that they feel abhorrent.
It's not actually about telling
other states or producers
in those states what
to do with the animals,
because after all with
the trade ban in place
the producers can decide how
to react to the trade ban.
They can move their production
to a different country
and sell it there.
They can abide by
those requirements
and continue to export
to that country,
but they're not bound by it.
KRISTEN STILT: Well,
on a small scale
that's the Massachusetts
law now as well.
If you want to sell here, here's
what you have to accomplish.
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER: Yeah,
but you're not obliged--
KRISTEN STILT: You're
not obliged to sell here.
Exactly.
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER: That's
an important element.
And then of course looking
at ways in which products
are alike or unlike
under WTO justifications,
under public morals,
animal welfare, or ways
to protect natural resources.
KRISTEN STILT: So, I want
to ask a few more questions
and let everyone else here
ask questions as well.
A question I've always
thought a lot about
is, should animals take
on a sort of citizenship
of their country of origin?
That is to say, when Australia
puts hundreds of thousands
of sheep on a boat and sends
them to the Middle East,
should they carry with them
the protection that they
had under Australian law?
It's the question
you're asking here,
but I'm sort of putting an
animal in front and center.
Does Australia have
a right to expect
that they would be treated
as they would be at home?
A right to even put that in
the shipping requirements,
or is that too invasive?
Is that getting at questions
of multiculturalism and respect
for minorities?
And here, of course, we're
talking about Halal slaughter,
which would be potentially
a slaughter that
does not meet the standards
of Australian law.
Should we think about
animals as citizens,
traveling around the
world and carrying
a passport and the protection
that comes with it?
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER: So, this
is a very good question.
I believe, too, that there
are limits to seeing animals
as property that are regulated
through the nationality
of their property
holders, for example.
You can just move ownership
and then actually abate
jurisdiction as well.
So, in the book I looked
at whether animals
could be directly subject to
jurisdiction as being goods,
as being hybrid
neutral subjects.
But then I also turned to what
I call functional nationality.
So, think of ships, for example,
that ship the high seas.
They're not nationals in the
strict sense of the state,
but they do move under the
flag nationality principle.
And this is a de
facto nationality
that is used under
international law.
I personally do support
claims for citizenship
for animals following Donaldson
and Kymlicka's Zoopolis, et
cetera.
But I believe even just for the
cases of sticking to the status
quo, it's easy at
least for some states,
to set up de facto
nationality for animals.
Many animals do
have pet passports.
There's horse
passports, et cetera.
They carry the
emblem of the states.
There's a description
that looks exactly
like a human passport
in many states.
So, this can be used
as an indication
of de facto nationality.
When it comes to the case
that you just mentioned,
Australia, I think there's a
real paradox or problem here
that to the extent
that if Australia
were to sell de facto
nationality for the sheep
living abroad for example,
claiming that they should be
slaughtered in a certain
way or that they should
be treated in a
certain way, then
I think the conflict arises.
Does Australia actually want
to really export or not?
The conflict becomes, are
we OK with making lots
of profit from the
exploitation of these animals,
or are we not?
And this is an ongoing
conflict that could
culminate at this intersection.
KRISTEN STILT: The
last question I'll
ask you is you express
skepticism about treaties,
that international treaty
could be a solution.
And I was wondering if you
could reflect a little bit
on human rights treaties?
And oftentimes, they
are aspirational.
They do seek to
bring countries up
to the level in the
treaty, as opposed
to starting from the
lowest common denominator.
Your take on animal
treaties tended
to assume we would get a lowest
common denominator treaty
and that's worse than nothing.
Is the human rights
treaty body system
at all a model that
we might aspire to?
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER:
In an ideal world,
at least from a critical
animal perspective,
I feel like this
would be something
that could fundamentally
further the plight of animals.
I think it would be very
useful to have robust rights
for animals, ways to
actually have them
access remedies, et cetera.
So, that would be
very important.
My assumption that
we will converge
toward the lowest
common denominator
is that if we look at--
as I mentioned, there are no
international treaties enforced
that currently do protect
animals as individuals,
as bearers of interests.
But there are proposals like
the International Convention
on Animal Protection,
the Universal Declaration
of Animal Welfare.
But they're very, very
lax and for most states
that have high levels
of animal protection,
they would not be useful.
In fact, they would bring down
their levels of animal welfare.
So, it would in fact
be counterproductive.
Then there's proposals
like the Declaration
of Animal Rights, which is
far more aspirational, more
into the direction of the
human rights treaties.
And I think those could
theoretically be useful,
and it's still important to
in addition to looking at ways
to protect animals
extraterritorially,
to pursue the road of
having an aspirational
or having at least
a conversation
about aspirational
treaties for animals.
KRISTEN STILT:
And of course, no.
We only have a human
rights treaties
because of World War II
and the horrific events
that prompted the
world to sit down
and say how can that
not happen again.
And maybe we haven't had any
kind of confrontational moment
like that for animals.
So, I want to take
your questions
and see where you want to
follow up on any of these things
that [INAUDIBLE].
SPEAKER 1: Please wait
for the microphone,
because we're recording.
AUDIENCE: Thank you for
this talk, Professor Stilt
and Charlotte.
This picks up on,
Professor Stilt,
your point about
what would it take
to convince, say, a
legislator in the US
to adopt this kind of framework.
And when I was thinking
about your question
I thought, well, what
are the reasons why
we have the domestic
animal rights
protections that we have now?
And could you convince?
First of all, I think
that in a large part,
they're a response
to the public's
sentiment about this issue.
Do you get a sense
that the public
has some idea, some
distinction that they
have between our animals
and their animals?
And whether animals
outside their own country
and whether or not
the argument would
be animal welfare is not
an issue that is restrained
by boundaries,
because in some sense,
animals and animal
welfare is an issue
that crosses over boundaries.
So, that's the first
part of the question.
That requires a sense that
animals belong to the world,
in a way.
But my understanding
of jurisdiction
is that a central basis
for exercising jurisdiction
is nexus.
So, here you might
have this opposite idea
that in order to
protect animals,
there has to be some
idea that they're
ours as opposed to not ours.
I guess this question
is for a little bit
later, which of those
ideas, if they're true,
can help your project?
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER: That's
a very good question.
I believe it has two
sides to it and finding
the right middle line in
between will be very difficult.
On the one hand, I
believe viewing animals
as ours can be very
conducive, especially
as animals are literally
relocated from one state
to another.
This was the case when it comes,
for example, to the horses that
were exported to Mexico.
But then on the other
hand, it can literally
go into the direction of
being really negative,
because all the US cares about
is their horses while not
actually looking at the ways
in which those horses have
been treated in the context
of the US, for example.
And it can be used
to actually oppress
Mexican ways of using animals.
So, I think there's
two aspects to this.
One can be really dangerous,
nationalistic tendencies
when it comes to animals
and ways in which others
are being oppressed.
And on the other hand, having
a truly genuine connection
to animals that are
seen as de facto
nationals, quasi-citizens,
however you want to call this.
Yeah.
So, the book does try to provide
a lot of working solutions,
but I think its main
goal is to actually have
this conversation.
And hopefully also to have it,
not only on a global scale,
but within each country
and debate those ideas.
AUDIENCE: This goes not
so much to the geography
of the regulation, but to
the type of regulation.
So, would it be more
effective to have prohibitions
over certain things or
to have market solutions
for regulating them?
I'm thinking about Cecil
the lion, for example.
Does it make sense
to prohibit hunting?
Or does it make sense to sell
licenses and fuel the money
back into the community?
Like, what nature should
these regulations be?
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER:
Good question.
I believe they're in line with
the human rights regime that
has established much more
expertise and experience when
it comes to the
extraterritorial dimensions.
There's not a consensus
in the human rights regime
that there needs to be a
smart mix between regulations
and market based mechanisms.
So, we have not
talked about this,
but there's also
an entire chapter
in the book that deals with
so-called extended forms
of extraterritorial
jurisdiction.
Be it investment rules,
export credit regulation, CSR,
code of conduct,
OECD recommendations
for multinationals, et cetera.
So, more subtle forms of
extraterritorial jurisdiction,
but they can in
certain circumstances
be actually more effective.
Think of investment rules that
kick in before a project is
actually being set up abroad.
KRISTEN STILT: I
think the challenge
is that in the
human rights world,
we have a consensus that
there are human rights.
And we're starting from really
no consensus in terms of what
are we even talking about.
So, the challenge is even
greater in that sense.
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER: Yeah.
SPEAKER 1: Questions?
AUDIENCE: Yes.
Thank you for this talk.
It gave me a lot to think about.
I was wondering about the
substantial effects point.
If the state wants to enforce
extraterritorial jurisdiction
and it's not one of
their own nationals,
you're saying that it
could still enforce these
under substantial effect.
But I'm wondering,
does there have
to be a market
for those products
that these animal products in
the country is enforcing it?
And if so, then is it
the same implementation
that an import ban has.
After they don't want to
apply those regulation,
they're going to stop
selling planned market.
Is that the only way to
have substantial effect,
or are there other means
I'm not thinking of.
KRISTEN STILT: You have
substantial effects on what?
That's a good clarification--
AUDIENCE: Exactly.
KRISTEN STILT: --starting plan.
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER: So,
usually the substantial effects
have been seen as having
substantial effect on market
and anti-trust
laws, for example,
that do distort the market in
another country, for example,
have been seen as giving
rise to the right of states
to apply the laws
across the border.
But the effects
principles is now
also applied in other areas.
For example, when it comes
to labor law protections
there have been a few cases
where effects principle has
been applied.
Or even environmental effects,
and here the boundaries
between the different
jurisdictional principles
begin to blur, because we also
have the protective principle.
I haven't talked
about this today,
but the protective principle
would also, for example,
empower states to regulate
concentrated animal feeding
operations abroad if they have
an effect on their environment,
a substantial one.
That would be another case.
KRISTEN STILT: What's
the labor example?
Can you tell us what that is?
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER:
It was a case.
I think also Bush versus--
I can't remember exactly,
but it was a case in the US
where basically low
labor standards abroad
did have a negative effect on
the labor market within the US.
And there were claims
that this could
be applied extraterritorially.
I think this case was denied,
but there are other examples
that I talk about in
other jurisdictions where
on a legislative
basis [INAUDIBLE]..
KRISTEN STILT: If
people are thinking,
can I ask you a follow up?
Oh no.
We've got one.
AUDIENCE: This isn't to do so
much with this kind of trade
but, there are I think
many countries-- most have
some regulations on animals
coming in, whether they're cats
or maybe there are breeders.
Even things like cats,
where some of them
cost thousands of dollars and
in quarantines, like in England
I understand it's a very good
long quarantine on animals.
I don't know how they find them.
So, it seems that there's
some agreement, in a way,
even though it's not
done internationally.
Individual states,
but countries,
do have some notion of health
in the animals and so forth.
So, it seems like
there could be a way
to start with
something like that
and then escalate it into
the huge amounts of slaughter
or something.
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER:
Very good point.
I think that ties to
one of the questions
that you also wanted
to ask about the OIE
and the connection between
animal welfare and animal
health.
KRISTEN STILT: Right.
Well, I think to this
point, there's no question
that states of course to
make a trade barrier issues,
can regulate what's coming in
with their own health or safety
or standards, et cetera.
But on the health
question, some of you
may have heard of the World
Animal Health Organization,
or World Organization
for Animal Health, which
is the only international
organization that has animal
welfare anywhere in its ambit.
And it's not really high up.
It's part of it, in the sense
that welfare leads to better
health is the theory.
But that's the only
place in the world where
these kind of conversations
have been had,
but I don't think you're
super enthusiastic
about this organization becoming
the home of animal welfare
standards around the world.
That's how I read
your take on it.
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER: Well, there
are different reasons for that
and you're correct
in thinking that I
don't believe that this is
a very fruitful way going
forward.
Technically, the OIE agreements
covering animal welfare--
KRISTEN STILT: It's
also called the OIE.
It's the French.
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER: Yeah.
Could technically
operate as a means
to set up more robust
protections for animals.
But mostly, the OIE's treaties
are from a recommendation,
so they're not binding.
The way in which those
standards are set
can be problematic from a
democratic point of view.
There's another
dimension to that
and that is the OIE's role
in the context of trade.
Usually, it's more
easy for a state
to ban importation
of certain products
by saying international
standards set by OIE
forbids that animals be
treated this and that way,
so we're not allowing those
imports to take place.
The problem is that the WTO
has recognized the OIE only as
a standard setter when it
comes to animal health,
but not when it comes
to animal welfare.
And animal welfare only
became a mandate of the OIE
after this agreement took place
between the WTO and the OIE.
So, this is a point of
ongoing conversation.
And then also, not only
from a legal perspective,
but also from a
scientific perspective,
where does animal health start?
Where do we move into the
sphere of animal welfare,
because some of these
are really intertwined.
AUDIENCE: Thank you both.
I'm curious if you've thought
through what mechanism
or what role labeling could
play in animal products
and bringing increased
transparency?
I know in this country there's
been a lot of debate back
and forth about
country of origin
labeling for meat
products, but I'm
wondering if there could
be an additional role
for a country that wants to
shed some light on [INAUDIBLE]..
So, I'm not sure exactly
what it would look like.
But raised in Australia,
slaughtered in Indonesia,
or something like that for
packaged animal products.
If that would add some level of
transparency to consumer choice
or if there are negative
implications of that?
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER:
Labeling is something
that I do cover in the book
as part of the WTO law.
I'm skeptical about labels
for a number of reasons.
I believe that many
labels are misleading
and some court cases in
Australia, for example,
are showing that by now.
So, they can be very deceptive.
For example, when it says free
range on a package of eggs,
what does it mean?
Does it mean you have like 20
square meters of ranging free
as an animal?
Do you get to do this five
minutes a day or 24 hours?
Is it with thousands of
animals in the same room,
and how much can you
freely range then?
So, there's an element in
which people's good intentions
are being exploited as those
products are being sold.
And I believe most
people are not
buying products as they go
through the store and thinking,
oh I'm sure that's not a
good standards by which it
was produced.
In fact, they don't even want
to think about these dimensions
because they think
about preparing dinner
for their family or culinary
pleasures, et cetera.
The second dimension
is that I've
looked at some of the empirical
studies around labeling
and what I've seen
was that it was mainly
price that is decisive
for consumer choice.
So, regardless of whether
you have labels or not,
most consumers simply
go by price, even
those that actually advocate for
better protections for animals.
So, I'm not a strong
advocate for labels,
but I do set out some
ways in which this
could be strengthened in
international trade law.
AUDIENCE: I was
wondering if you've
had a chapter
[INAUDIBLE] convention
like CITES, like the convention
[INAUDIBLE] endangered species.
Which actually makes
it enforceable,
so states could
potentially pursue if they
don't necessarily enforce.
Let's say, trade happens
in a [INAUDIBLE] one.
If there is an upper
next, the state and states
can be used to would
enforce trade sanctions,
potentially even sue
the state for inaction.
So, do you think that a
convention of that sort
for animal welfare is possible?
Where all the member
countries are held responsible
for the enforcement.
[INAUDIBLE]
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER: My view of
society is a bit more critical,
I believe.
Sadly, it is known not
to be properly enforced.
They're like ministry
of authorities
within each state that are
bound to enforce CITES,
but this is not taking place.
And even if you
don't as a state,
there's more action right now
to hold states responsible
who don't abide by
their principles.
But if a state feels
attacked by this,
it can simply withdraw
from the treaty
and then access it again later.
The United Arab Emirates
did that in 1988
and then did it again in '99.
So, I don't know.
I'm not highly a
huge fan of CITES
also because it's focusing
on the dimensions of trade.
It focuses on species rather
than individual animals.
I'm not sure if
I would use CITES
as a role model for individual
protections of animals.
Or I'll turn to what
Professor Stilt said--
look at more
ambitious human rights
treaties as possible ways
to further discuss options
for international treaty.
AUDIENCE: I want to just follow
up on one thing you said.
There's so much that's
fantastic about your book
and new and novel.
And one chapter in particular--
I've never seen anyone
talk about this at all,
which is the role of
major international
financial institutions
and their investments
in large agricultural
properties and endeavors
and what role could they play?
I'm assuming they don't
play a very good role now.
They don't impose much
in the way of standards
when they invest in development
of a big factory farm in China.
But that seems to be--
like international finance
corporation-- that seems
to be a really potentially
powerful way.
Do you want to say a
little bit more about that?
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER: Sure, yeah.
I also believe that this is a
topic that has been taking off
in the past five years, even.
KRISTEN STILT:
Yeah, very recent.
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER:
Yeah, very recent.
So, international organizations
are increasingly setting up
investment principles.
Usually, they would consider
only environmental principles.
And here, that only
indirectly links to animals.
For example,
environmental pollution
caused by concentrated
animal feeding operations.
But now they're setting up
animal welfare principles.
So the IFC has a set
of recommendations
that deal with animal welfare.
They also have a good
note on animal welfare,
good practice note
on animal welfare.
The problem is, as I
see it, this has so far
mainly served for the
IFC to have good image
from a public perception basis.
But when it comes to
actually pushing and pulling
through those commitments,
that's not in place.
So, when we look at
the numbers of the IFC,
it still funds
major [INAUDIBLE]..
Like huge facilities in
Ukraine, Bulgaria, China
that actually do produce some
of the biggest [INAUDIBLE]..
Is there a way to hold the
IFC accountable for that?
KRISTEN STILT: Has there
been efforts to try?
Cause it sounds like the text
of the language is not bad,
but the implementation
is lacking.
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER: Yeah, so.
KRISTEN STILT: That's
a great project.
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER:
Yeah, there is definitely
implementation that is lacking.
What's been done
is, for example,
the fair initiative is now a
consulting organization that
helps corporations
themselves, not the IFC,
to actually accredit them for
their investment practices.
And not just the commitment,
but how it actually
plays out in practice.
That's a way to hold
corporations accountable
who do operate on the DIFC.
But as far as I'm
concerned, for reform
I don't know of any mechanism to
hold the IFC itself accountable
apart from calling
it out in public.
KRISTEN STILT:
OK, anything else?
Go ahead.
AUDIENCE: Thanks for coming in.
At the end of the
talk, Professor Stilt
pointed out that the
horrors of World War II
forced the world to reckon
with the sorts of injustices
to which some individuals
can subject others.
My concern is that there seems
to be a general understanding
of the horrors which
animals are subjected,
and yet there is
pervasive apathy.
I don't mean to
understate the gains that
have been made by people to
try to shine a light on what's
occurring, and
yet it still seems
to be the case that whatever
sympathy or empathy is felt
for humans who go
through atrocities,
that same level of
empathy or sympathy
is not there for animals.
Professor Stilt said we're
starting at square one,
or we're just trying
to get things moving
because where people
are in this room
is pretty far removed from
where much of the world is.
Where do you begin?
KRISTEN STILT: You know,
maybe the analogy isn't apt.
Maybe there doesn't have to
be one cataclysmic event.
Maybe it is just this slow
moving change over time.
Maybe global warming
will be the impetus.
I don't know.
I don't mean to
answer the question,
but I just think we
have to recognize
when we look at the
human rights model
that the world had just come to
those conclusions preemptively.
Something really
horrific happens.
That's a slightly
simplistic version,
but something prompted
those conversations
and does there need to be that
prompt, and what would it be?
I don't know.
How do you think
about those questions?
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER: I totally
agree with what you said.
Maybe something I
could add in terms
of what I feel like could
be conducive to make us
as a society, but also
on a political level,
be more aware of
what we do to animals
is to simply give them a voice.
And I believe we don't
do that right now.
We're not very often
listening to what
animals have to say to
us, even though they
resist in manifold ways.
We're just not listening to
those ways of resistance.
We're basically silencing them.
So, I believe a way to bring
this into the conversation
is having animal
language be discussed
on a political level, ways
in which we can translate
what they think and feel.
Eva Meijer, for example,
she just published a book
with NYU Press.
It came out one
or two weeks ago.
She's a fantastic
scholar in that respect.
And I think that is--
KRISTEN STILT: What's
the book called?
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER:
Animal Languages.
There's a subtitle.
I think, political
communication.
KRISTEN STILT: But
your point, I think,
was that we know what we need to
know and yet there's no action.
Is that in part what
you were saying?
AUDIENCE: I wonder
whether that's the case.
Sometimes, it seems that the
animal welfare organizations
are intent primarily
on obtaining footage
from slaughterhouses
to get the message out
that horrors are occurring.
Sometimes, it seems
that people do know,
but the impetus to change that
we would imagine that to be,
it isn't.
But maybe it's the
case that we're just
in a progressive
Cambridge bubble
and people generally don't
know, actually, what's
going on in slaughterhouses.
I'm sure this is something
you have researched, but.
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER:
I mean, there's
different ways to tackle that.
I think having a conversation
about this, not silencing it,
increasing our empathy through
media education, for example.
I think there's not one
solution to this problem.
I don't believe that.
And it will depend on
the cultural context
within each nation
and even locally.
So, I always advocate for
multi-dimensional efforts
to actually bring
about the conversation.
In some countries, some means
have been very effective
and others have.
So, this is part of an
ongoing exploration, I think.
KRISTEN STILT: I'll just
add my own personal sense
is that we don't know enough
about what people think
and how they shift beliefs.
And I think social
psychology has not
been a field that's been really
well integrated into the animal
protection movement, but I think
as more social psychologists
come in and start to ask
these kinds of questions,
maybe we'll get more answers.
AUDIENCE: Recently,
there's been a huge amount
of corporate investment
in plant based foods.
And this is a big thing.
It's not just a few people
in a co-op or something.
But when these corporations,
including places like Burger
King and things are doing that.
So, people try them and there's
a much greater awareness.
It doesn't mean that
they'll act and then
translate it into looking at
these international issues.
KRISTEN STILT:
These huge shifts,
that's what I was talking about.
AUDIENCE: But I do think
there's no question that that's
a big thing now.
KRISTEN STILT:
There was a-- will
be a last question back here?
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER: Can I
quickly respond to that?
I believe this is a
fantastic development.
And part of me wants to
believe that at some point,
it might be able to displace
the consumption of animals.
I've recently read
a piece by who
uses a critical lens
on this looking back
at how the rise of
organic products
was also thought to displace
[INAUDIBLE] produced products.
And it did not.
It just was meant
to live friendly
next to the careful products.
So, I wanted to see, too, more
empirical studies actually
showing how we can
displace animal products
through these alternatives.
AUDIENCE: Yes, this
is a follow up.
Across different
countries, how much change
do you think that is optimistic?
People who can change
on behalf of animals,
because they feel
guilty or they want
to make a change
for the animals,
versus a public health concern
a race to the bottom leads to.
[INAUDIBLE] crowding
and that caused problems
in science and health issues.
How much of the changes do
you see across countries
as a place of wanting
to help the animals
or just wanting to help us?
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER: That
is a difficult question
and it totally depends.
Are we talking politicians,
individuals, corporations?
What interests you most?
AUDIENCE: Well, I
don't know how much
are the changes being
driven by consumption.
Either you may have
drag on public health
field versus fanning of birds
is not really a public health
issue.
But California had
a public program.
I'm interested as to what caused
the legislative pockets to want
to change in the first place.
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER:
Again, I would
be cautious to kind of
generalize these claims.
I think it probably depends.
As I mentioned before,
cow protections in India
are not even about cows.
They're not about
protecting them,
but they're mostly about
making a statement,
claiming a nationality
or circumstance
and excluding orders.
Then there are truly
altruistic motives.
Then there are moves that, for
example, climate protest right
now have had a huge effect
on certain politicians
and legislators.
In other states, politicians
have been totally resilient
and not listening
to climate protests.
I don't know.
I think it would totally
depend on the context,
the type of measure
that is being proposed.
Yeah.
KRISTEN STILT: Just to
add that in the research
I've done, mainly in
the Muslim world, where
there's a very strong religious
support for animal welfare.
And if you ask people
what does this verse mean,
or what does this mean?
Does this mean
that animals should
be protected for themselves?
The answer is absolutely.
But when you try to figure out
what actually causes movement
and change, it's public health.
It's not abstract concern.
And there's also varying
levels of consumer awareness.
Somebody was asking
me about labels.
Well, in these meat
markets, there's no labels.
They're just carcasses
hanging on a hook.
And so consumers don't think
to ask these kinds of questions
because there is an
infrastructure that
talks about different kinds
of choices of what might
they mean.
I don't mean to
have a grim ending,
but there are countries with
much higher level of consumer
awareness and
transparency and knowledge
than others and
people are just trying
to get a few grams of
meat for the daily stew
and get home as
quick as possible
and aren't in a position where
the government which controls
many countries, the
government controls
the way things are labeled
or not labeled or presented.
There's no information.
There's no conversation
to start with.
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER:
Maybe to add,
many countries are also not
democracies in the sense
that individuals could
actually influence
the debate on a public
level, apart from protesting.
SPEAKER 3: Do you have
time for one last one?
KRISTEN STILT: Sure.
Actually, there's
someone in the back.
[INAUDIBLE]
AUDIENCE: This might be
a little bit off topic,
but if you have an opinion
about how far off you
think we are from having
a substitute for meat
that is better for
building muscle
and more nutritious
and that tastes better
and is less expensive?
Because, to me, once that
happens, just naturally,
the slaughterhouses
are going to shut down.
KRISTEN STILT: Are you talking
about cellular agriculture?
Cultured meat?
Is that what you're
talking about?
AUDIENCE: Any meat substitute.
KRISTEN STILT: Any
meat substitute.
I think we've got some
pretty good ones right now.
AUDIENCE: Something that's
superior in every way.
KRISTEN STILT:
Well, you may have
to wait for the cultured
meat to come to market,
but that's not that far off.
In our own clinic--
Gabe, you might want
to say something
about our own clinic, or
Kelly, you're here too--
is actually talking to the
American regulators about how
quickly that might happen.
You want to weigh in?
You want to give us
a date by which we
can purchase cultured meat?
AUDIENCE: I don't have a date.
I don't think anyone has one.
I know that there are a
couple of companies now
that are claiming to be ready
to or ready in the next year
or two to bring their
products to market,
and are only waiting on
a regulatory pathway.
I'll caveat to say that
any products being brought
to market within the next couple
of years, if it happens that
quickly, will be on a
very, very small scale
and be very, very expensive.
We anticipate, but
this is technology
that companies are making big
promises about their ability
to scale and eventually
make it cost competitive.
I think another important point
is that one of the time delays
is that regulatory pathway.
But we have heard that USDA
is in the process of drafting
regulations that would allow
these products to be brought
to market, so we don't know
how fast that will happen.
We're working to
push them to make
that happen a little bit faster
and in a commonsense way.
KRISTEN STILT: Great, excellent.
All right so now we're
on our last question.
AUDIENCE: Just on the more
general note about the idea
that everybody knows
and no one cares.
I mean, I'm sorry to
reduce the comment to that.
Is it a matter of knowing
or is it a matter of caring
may be a good way to put it.
You might mention
that knowing something
is not a closed or discrete act.
The way that politics are now,
we can all look at one thing
and know facts of something and
see totally different things.
And I think what's going
on here with the program
and the scholars and thinkers
is that what really matters
is the lens by which
you look at something.
And that you can look at one
thing one time in one place
and you can see one thing.
But through developing
lenses, different lenses
for looking at the
same thing, you
can see something
totally different.
It is not like atrocities just
began in the last century.
It's how we see
them that changes.
And I think that's the work,
is to change how we see things.
KRISTEN STILT: Right.
It's a great way to end.
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER: Maybe--
KRISTEN STILT: Wrap it up.
Yes.
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER:
Austria, for example,
has a duty that it puts on the
government to actually inform
the public about all
matters of animal law, how
our actions affect
them, et cetera.
So, I think that would
be a good starting point.
To not just put it on the
shoulders of activists
to do all that work and come
up with the funds to do it,
but to oblige
governments to do that.
I'm not a huge fan
of Peter Singer,
unlike other people
in this room,
but he has an
article that he wrote
on developing and practicing
empathy towards animals.
And I think he's
totally right in saying
this is like a muscle.
And so far when we're
from kindergarten onwards,
we're not taught
skill-based knowledge
in terms of how are we
empathetic with others?
How do we create
solidarity with others?
What does it mean to be
the other, and all of this?
I think that should be an
important part of education
going forward.
And in an ideal
world, this would be
part of the school curriculum.
KRISTEN STILT: OK, great.
Well, thank you all for coming
and thank you, Charlotte,
for this magnificent book.
Really good book.
[APPLAUSE]
CHARLOTTE BLATTNER:
Maybe just to add,
there are two copies
on the desk for anyone
who wants to see them.
The book is available on
Open Access and free of cost.
So you go to Global
OEP and this is just
a short video showing that
you can download the PDF free
of cost.
So, anyone who's interested
in looking at it [INAUDIBLE]..
