"There is no one in the business that would intentionally try to harm animals, because there's simply a huge economic loss associated with that."

This argument has been used for decades by everyone in the animal-use industry. I've heard pet stores owners say this to municipal councils while puppies are displayed in tiny, wire-bottomed cages, many of them sick; while there are dead birds at the bottom of cages jam-packed with birds; while reptiles are in stinking, water-fouled little aquariums.

Dead animals are factored into the cost of doing business. All that's lost is the wholesale cost of the product. But veterinary care, spacious, humane displays, humane transport and slaughter, would take more employees, and cut too deeply into profits.

Using the same spin, circuses, zoos, aquariums, puppymillers, fur farmers, all said that they would never neglect their animals.

Using the same spin, circuses, zoos, puppymillers, fur farmers, all said that they would never neglect their animals.

I wonder how many people are left who are gulled by that transparent spin? Fewer and fewer it would seem, or the whole animal-use industry wouldn't be so wildly spinning.

If an animal is called "product" you can be sure that the bottom line takes precedence over the product's welfare.