Holy cow!

Peta’s moves are a pity

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are at it again. At the World Shoe Association fair in Las Vegas, Peta has argued for a boycott on imports of Indian leather products, since animals (especially cows) are cruelly killed by butchers, besides suffering inhuman treatment from transporters. This concern for animals would have been touching, had it not been so misguided. First, most Indian leather manufacturer-exporters use imported hides and skins and finished leather because of its better quality and preferences of foreign buyers. Second, barring two states, cows cannot be killed in India. The cattle (cows, calves, oxen) population is 211 mn. 16 mn die naturally every year and 10 mn hides are recovered from these. Out of the 15 mn that are slaughtered, only 3 mn are cows. The buffalo population is 96 mn. 8 mn die naturally every year and 5 mn hides are recovered from these. Indeed, 13 mn buffaloes are slaughtered. But the point is that India’s share in world production of bovine hides and skins is only 7 per cent and these are Food and Agriculture Organisation figures. Within the cow segment, India’s share is 3.3 per cent. If Peta believes in facts rather than fiction, it should therefore give up its obsession with holy cows.

The bulk of leather produced in India comes from goats and sheep, not cows. Peta might legitimately argue that these are not humanely slaughtered and that cows are not humanely treated during transportation. While these are valid points, do trade policy measures like boycotts help to solve such problems? There is the obvious parallel with the Harkin Bill, when children in Bangladesh were pulled out of carpet production and pushed into prostitution. The interests of animals would have been better served had Peta ploughed in money to modernise abattoirs. Since this is not being done, the Peta campaign should be recognised for what it is — yet another protectionist attempt to hinder exports from developing countries like India. In spirit, it is no different from attempts to bring in labour and environmental standards. The cause of humans and animals is better served if markets in developed countries are opened up instead. Benefits from trade and growth then lead to economic improvement, which in turn releases resources for better treatment of humans and animals alike.