Periodically, ACE conducts interviews with activist leaders, charity representatives, influential funders, academic researchers, and other experts. Our interviews touch on several aspects of animal advocacy and serve as an outside view that helps showcase issues that we might otherwise miss on our own.

Photo credit: Chris McAndrew

In our latest interview, we had the pleasure of speaking to Kerry McCarthy, a British politician and the first vegan member of parliament (MP) in the House of Commons. We spoke with McCarthy about the challenges she has faced in getting veganism on the political agenda. We’ve featured a few highlights from the interview below.

Why did you decide to go vegan?

I became vegetarian in 1981, and my younger sister then followed suit. She later became vegan and eventually — after listening to her explain the link between dairy and animal cruelty — I realized that I had to go vegan too. That was December 1991, and I became vegan as a New Year’s Resolution in 1992.

How has the animal rights movement changed since you first went vegan?

It has become more mainstream, with some very high profile campaigns and campaigners. There is a stronger emphasis on animals in the food system too, which I welcome — back [in 1992] it was mostly about anti-vivisection and hunting. Obviously, there’s an overlap between [animal] rights and welfare, and most of the current campaigns could be seen as being at the welfare end. I know some vegans regard a focus on welfare as counterproductive — as it has the potential to suggest that there can be such things as “humane slaughter” or “happy meat” — but I think we have to be pragmatic.

What are some of the challenges you’ve faced getting animal welfare on the political agenda?

Hunting is highly controversial, but there is huge public support [for a ban on hunting], and a majority in Parliament is for keeping the ban, despite vocal opponents.

The toughest challenge is when farming interests are involved. I was heckled by farming members of parliament (of which there are many) when I did my speech on World Vegan Day in 2011. A debate last year on driven grouse shooting (a particular type of hunting sport) — at which I was the only MP to fully support a ban — was also very bad-tempered. We had a debate on non-stun slaughter, during which Jewish and Muslim MPs were listening with respect, but when a Tory MP spoke from a vegetarian perspective about cruelty in other slaughterhouses, his colleagues jeered.

There is a huge degree of complacency about farm animal welfare, with ministers constantly repeating the mantra that the U.K. has some of the best animal welfare standards in the world. This is often used to shut down debate. A recent debate on banning live exports is another example of a challenge we faced.

Have you faced any challenges personally as a result of your status as a vegan in politics?

I worry that I have less credibility on some issues because people assume I’m biased or extreme. For example, in a recent private meeting I tried to ask a serious question about whether using public funds to increase milk production was really the right response to the crisis in the dairy industry — given that there is already an over-supply, which means prices are low. [I] was shouted down by a dairy farmer.

I was widely ridiculed in the press when I was made Shadow Secretary of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) — the Daily Mail was particularly bad. Even my mother was “doorstepped” by a journalist who said he was “passing by” (she lives in a village in Bedfordshire and doesn’t have the same surname as me).

Many of the things I was ridiculed for raising are actually pretty mainstream. The issue around methane emissions from cattle, for example, is supported by the UN’s Livestock’s Long Shadow report (and many other authoritative sources). I mentioned the UN’s verdict in the speech [which was] then used by the Daily Mail to say that I had some very laughable views. Yet the Daily Mail also frequently runs stories about the health risks associated with processed meat, and the environmental cost of meat-eating is now widely known and reported. In Al Gore’s recent sequel to An Inconvenient Truth, he says something to the effect of “I’ve been doing this for so long that I am now absolutely sure I am right” — and that’s kind of how I feel. It’s very reassuring to see other people now reaching the same conclusions I did many years ago, and, as Al Gore would say, I know we are right!

How do you think Brexit will affect farmed animal welfare/rights?

There are three main aspects to this:

Brexit will give the U.K. the opportunity to develop our own Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), replacing the current CAP with our own system of agricultural subsidies. These might be able to be used to promote higher welfare, and to discuss what “higher welfare” means. This is also linked to the debate on better labeling, including methods of rearing and slaughter. It will also affect trade deals — this is the most important thing. Are we going to jettison food safety and animal welfare standards in a rush to conclude a trade deal with the U.S.? Antibiotic use, which is already too high in U.K. farming, is five times higher in the U.S. — that’s a public health crisis in the making. Not to mention hormone-pumped beef, chlorinated chicken, etc. I am totally opposed to intensive industrialized mega-farms, and there is a danger that this is the way our farms will go if they have to compete with cheaper, lower welfare U.S. imports (although of course it’s not just the U.S.). Michael Gove has said the right things about not wanting the U.K. to lower its standards, but Liam Fox has said otherwise. It is absolutely critical that we make sure Gove prevails in Cabinet. The odds are stacked against him unless he has the public on his side. Lastly, Brexit will affect things we have previously said we can’t do because the E.U. won’t let us — like banning foie gras imports or live exports.

Read the interview in its entirety here.