Editing Animal welfare (section)

===Animal rights===
[[File:TomRegan.jpg|thumb|upright|American philosopher [[Tom Regan]] has criticized the animal welfare movement for not going far enough to protect animals' interests.]]
[[Animal rights]] advocates, such as [[Gary L. Francione]] and [[Tom Regan]], argue that the animal welfare position (advocating for the betterment of the condition of animals, but without abolishing animal use) is inconsistent in logic and ethically unacceptable. Philosopher [[Steven Best]] suggests that an emphasis on "welfarism" has the effect of legitimizing "any human use of animals" so long as humans aren't "cruel" to them and do whatever is necessary to avoid inflicting "unnecessary harm".<ref>{{cite book|last1=Best |first1=Steven |title=The Politics of Total Liberation: Revolution for the 21st Century |chapter=The New Abolitionism: Capitalism, Slavery, and Animal Liberation|year=2014 |pages=38–39|isbn=978-1-349-50086-4|doi=10.1057/9781137440723_2}}</ref> Sociologist [[David Nibert]] writes that animal welfare reforms, usually implemented by wealthier countries, are often "modest" and "mostly localized," and are vastly surpassed by the ongoing expansion of the [[capitalist]]–driven [[animal–industrial complex]], with the number of [[concentrated animal feeding operation]]s and the animals to fill them dramatically increasing, along with [[Population growth|growing numbers of humans]] consuming animal products.<ref>{{cite book|last=Nibert|first=David|date=2013|title=Animal Oppression and Human Violence: Domesecration, Capitalism, and Global Conflict|url=http://cup.columbia.edu/book/animal-oppression-and-human-violence/9780231151894|location=|publisher=[[Columbia University Press]]|pages=189, 233–240, 260–261|isbn=978-0-231-15189-4|access-date=24 December 2022|archive-date=4 November 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221104123609/http://cup.columbia.edu/book/animal-oppression-and-human-violence/9780231151894|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last= Nibert |first=David |editor1=Steven Best|editor2=Richard Kahn|editor3=Anthony J. Nocella II|editor4=Peter McLaren|author-link=David Nibert |editor1-link= Steven Best|editor4-link=Peter McLaren |date=2011|title=The Global Industrial Complex: Systems of Domination|chapter=Origins and Consequences of the Animal Industrial Complex |publisher=[[Rowman & Littlefield]] |pages=197–209|url=https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780739136973/The-Global-Industrial-Complex-Systems-of-Domination|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3ZM3gTCIWb0C&pg=PA197|isbn=978-0739136980}}</ref> However, there are some animal right groups, such as [[People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals|PETA]], which support animal welfare measures in the short term to alleviate animal suffering until all animal use is ended.<ref name=DS>[[n:Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder of PETA, on animal rights and the film about her life|Interview with Ingrid Newkirk]], David Shankbone, ''[[Wikinews]]'', 20 November 2007.</ref>

According to PETA's [[Ingrid Newkirk]] in an interview with ''[[Wikinews]]'', there are two issues in animal welfare and animal rights. "If I only could have one thing, it would be to end suffering", said Newkirk. "If you could take things from animals and kill animals all day long without causing them suffering, then I would take it... Everybody should be able to agree that animals should not suffer if you kill them or steal from them by taking the fur off their backs or take their eggs, whatever. But you shouldn't put them through torture to do that."<ref name="DS"/>

[[Abolitionism (animal rights)|Abolitionism]] holds that focusing on animal welfare not only fails to challenge animal suffering, but may actually prolong it by making the exercise of property rights over animals appear less unattractive. The abolitionists' objective is to secure a moral and legal paradigm shift, whereby animals are no longer regarded as property. In recent years documentaries such as watchdominion.com have been produced, exposing the suffering occurring in animal agriculture facilities that are marketed as having high welfare standards.