The Willingness to Pay for Exploitation

Luella brings up a good question about whether or not an increase in the cost of "food" produced from new methods of exploiting other animals will lead to abolition of the food-to-flesh industry. I haven't read the article Luella refers to yet, but I think the argument that increased prices will lead to abolition is flawed and little more than wishful thinking.

These pricier products derived from the exploitation of other animals often reflect new, expanding markets of capitalism. The industry is well aware of what it calls a "willingness-to-pay," or WTP, for both "intrinsic" (taste) and "extrinsic" (health and ethical considerations) characteristics. While taste represents eating quality, new methods of exploitation represent what the industry calls a "credence quality." As consumers, we often feel we're getting a better product because of the credence we attribute to the methods of exploitation used to produce the flesh, eggs, or milk-derived products. New methods of exploitation, like "cage-free" or "free range," represent a way for the industry to add value to its products for which we as consumers are willing to pay a premium.

In their book The Way We Eat, Peter Singer and Jim Mason support this logic of WTP when they encourage us to buy pricier "cage-free" and "free range" eggs. They write, "For those on a limited budget, a healthy option is to eat fewer eggs and buy more expensive but better-tasting eggs from hens free to move around inside a shed ['cage-free'] or, preferably, outdoors ['free range']." Presumably, if we're not on a limited budget there is no need to eat fewer eggs. Singer and Mason clearly see a WTP, even for the poorest of us, for these pricier products derived from exploiting other animals. This WTP is bolstered by claims of "health," "taste," and "ethical consideration."

What we need to keep in mind is that the other animals whose flesh, milk, and eggs are being marketed are still being bred, enslaved, and slaughtered to turnout products. And any increase in price will be marketed as reflecting an increase in product quality.

There are more meaningful credence qualities we are willing to pay for, for example, when food is (stock-free) organic, GMO-free, or fair-trade. These product all cost more than their standard counterparts, yet no one is arguing the advocating organics, GMO-free foods, or fair-trade products will lead to the collapse of these industries. So we should question why we should believe that exploitation like "cage-free" or "free range" production will lead to the collapse of the industry exploiting other animals for their flesh, egg, and milk.

Of course, veganism is opposed to the exploitation of other animals. Veganism as anti-oppression is not simply individual change, but is about collectively working to affect change in society. Simply making the products derived form exploiting other animals more expensive is not going to end the exploitation of other animals, human supremacy, or speciesism. However, by addressing these factors of oppression veganism works to challenge society directly to stop viewing other living beings as "food" and other commodities. That is, we can directly challenge the assumed ethical credence attributed to any products derived wholly or partly from exploiting other animals; through veganism we challenge society's willingness to pay for exploitation.

Far from a step towards meaningful abolition, new methods of exploiting other animals are supported by research and development (product R&D) that work to open up new markets that are supported by WTP. It should be seen as a leap of logic to believe that because flesh, eggs, and milk-derived products increase in price people will stop viewing other animals as "food." Without an anti-oppression approach like veganism challenging WTP little will change.