A recent report published by the Environment and Animal Society of Taiwan showed that inhumane animal slaughter is still prevalent in the country's meat markets. A film that formed part of the report showed slaughterhouses where panicked live hogs are hung head down before having their throats cut.
The electronic media, however, seems to have taken a low-key approach to the news and has refrained from broadcasting the more disturbing footage.
Relevant debate, meanwhile, was scarce in the print media. As a result, the story had one day of exposure before quickly vanishing from public view.
A pessimistic conclusion is that without media coverage the inhumane treatment of animals is likely to continue.
Why is the public reaction so pragmatic? Don't people care that the pork they eat may have been cruelly slaughtered at a dirty abattoir or that the pigs suffered? It is impossible for a majority to remain unaffected after seeing the cruel treatment exposed in the film.
The reason people brush this report aside is that their next meal may well include pork and they will still have no clue how the animals were treated.
As a result, people tend to remain silent and regard the matter as a necessary evil. People may very well imagine that since the animals will be slaughtered anyway, humane treatment is not importanty.
Furthermore, we use animals for so many things that it would be difficult to justify the "selective mercy" for pigs and not for other animals.
If we turn it around, however, comprehensive mercy toward animals is such an absurdity in today's human-centered societies that, given the choice, we should choose to be more humane.
The adoption of a "friendly agriculture" that takes a humane approach to slaughter is a good way to begin.
Since hogs are a food animal, their treatment might not be comparable to the treatment of companion animals, but since they do feel pain and it is quite impossible that mankind will stop eating meat, ensuring humane slaughter should be a basic requirement.
English utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham had a profound impact on animal welfare by arguing that the question was not whether animals can reason or talk, but whether they can suffer.
The implication is the hope that humans will prevent animals from suffering unnecessarily.
Later, the French deconstructionist Jacques Derrida reinterpreted the issue of suffering.
He argued that the biggest difference between the question of whether animals can suffer and other questions such as if they are capable of thought, communication, reasoning and so on is that suffering is not a matter of ability, but rather a possibility of helplessness and a weakness resulting from powerlessness.
Posing anthropocentric questions about animals having human skills suggests that we only have to treat them humanely if they possess human abilities.
When we ask if animals can suffer, we are talking about quite a different kind of capability. This approach implies that human beings, just like animals, are sometimes physically vulnerable, weak, powerless and forced to suffer passively.
Derrida said that this shared capability to suffer should be the connecting point between human beings and animals and the key to human pity.
The same reasoning applies to the slaughter of food animals. When watching news about hogs being cruelly slaughtered, we should ask ourselves if they are suffering.
If the answer is yes, then we should support the idea of humane slaughter, rather than getting excessively defensive about food animals as not having any right to welfare.
Seven years ago, the same animal protection group had filed a lawsuit against inhumane slaughter methods and called on the public to stop consuming pork from animals that are bled to death rather than electrocuted.
Today, investigations have revealed even more cruel mistreatment in abattoirs.
Nothing has changed and this is because we are not willing to face the truth of what is going on in abattoirs.
As a result, only if consumers are willing to imagine the fear and pain of hogs being hung upside down and having their throats cut will they be able to exert their supervisory rights and force the authorities to take a square look at the issue and bring inhumane slaughter practices to an end.
Huang Tsung-huei is an associate professor in the foreign languages and literature department at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS