Andrew Knight

Environmental impacts attributable to livestock production are proportionate to consumption levels. To compare the consumption of livestock animals by dogs, cats and people, the dietary energy needs of each group were calculated for the US and globally. US pet food ingredients (2020), and environmental impact data for plant- and animal-based ingredients were also analysed. A worldwide transition to nutritionally sound vegan diets within each group could end the slaughter of the following numbers of terrestrial livestock animals annually (billions): dogs – 6.0, cats – 0.9 and humans – 71.3, along with billions of aquatic animals. Land freed up would exceed the areas of: dogs – Saudi Arabia or Mexico, cats – Japan/Germany and humans – Russia (the world’s largest country), plus India. Freshwater volumes spared would exceed all renewable freshwater within: dogs – Denmark, cats – Jordan and humans – Cuba. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) eliminated would exceed all GHG emissions from: dogs – South Africa or the UK, cats – Israel or New Zealand and humans – India or the entire EU. Food energy savings could feed human populations greater than those of: dogs – the entire EU, cats – France or the UK and humans – two-thirds of the Earth’s population.

Few animal welfare issues are more controversial than scientific or educational animal use, partly because harms are sometimes deliberately inflicted on animals. Welfare impacts may occur during animal sourcing, transportation, housing, and both routine and invasive scientific procedures. Impacts depend on sentience levels, procedural invasiveness, environmental, social, or other factors, and mitigation strategies such as anaesthesia, analgesia (painkillers), and environmental enrichment. Animal welfare impacts are cumulative over time. Death is one of the most profound harms that may be inflicted. 192 million animals were used internationally in 2015 – the most recent recorded year – most of whom were killed. Around 2–19 million animals were used for educational purposes. However, systematic reviews have clearly demonstrated the very limited benefits of such research for human healthcare. This results both from limitations intrinsic to animal models, and from the ways in which they are used, with methodological flaws highly prevalent. Systematic reviews have also demonstrated that well-designed humane teaching methods normally produce learning outcomes as good or better than those achieved through harmful animal use. 3Rs alternatives include Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement of animal use. Compliance with 3Rs principles and best practice standards should become mandatory, during design, conduct, and reporting of animal experiments.

The adequate preparation of students for clinical practice is a major challenge within veterinary education. To teach clinical and surgical skills and scientific concepts, animals have often been used as teaching tools and are subjected to invasive procedures, which sometimes result in death. Animals are also used in non‐harmful ways, such as when student‐owned dogs are used to teach clinical examination skills. Such uses are not generally controversial. In contrast, the harmful use of animals within veterinary education is ethically contentious. This chapter will focus on such animal use, reviewing both the animal and human impacts of such use, the efficacy and benefits of alternative teaching methods, applicable legislation, and the positions of veterinary professional associations. It will conclude with recommendations for addressing this issue for students, universities, veterinary schools, and veterinary professional associations.

Since the second half of the twentieth century, non-human animals (hereinafter referred to as animals) have been widely used as models for researching human disorders. Historically, this occurred for two main reasons: a) animals are complex living systems; and b) it is considered less ethically-contentious as well as easier, quicker, and cheaper to use animals than humans. Their benefit for biomedical advancement is assumed even though systematic evaluations, though uncommon, suggest otherwise. It is crucial to evaluate whether animal-based biomedical research successfully benefits medical research— even through indirect pathways— or if it is being used merely to justify further animal-based

Researchers have sought to understand the mechanisms of human health and disease, for as long as the latter has existed. Serious interest in the structure and functioning of the human body has been evident at least since the ancient Greeks. However, the investigations of Greek physicians into human anatomy and physiology were greatly hampered by social taboos about dissecting human corpses (von Staden, 1989). But non-human animals (hereinafter referred to as animals), were not so revered or feared. Some dissected their corpses, while others, such as Alcmaeon of Croton (sixth–fifth century, BCE), practiced surgical or other invasive procedures on

Veganism sits at the intersection of the solutions to many of the most pressing challenges presently facing humanity, and the rest of the animals with whom we share our planet. It is therefore remarkable, and sociologically intriguing, that this dietary and lifestyle option has not yet been adopted with greater enthusiasm. This chapter briefly summarises the case for treating animals in accordance with a moral status justified by their morally-relevant characteristics. It then reviews the global public health, economic, environmental and animal welfare benefits conferred by vegan diets. Animals should be especially valuable to us. They matter because of their many practical, aesthetic and cultural uses, but also because they are intrinsically valuable, independent of any utility they may have for human beings.