Arguments about food security are sometimes used to resist animal welfare improvements. Understanding the real relationships between welfare, efficiency, and food access helps advocates respond effectively.
Food security arguments are sometimes used in good faith and sometimes as a rhetorical shield against welfare improvement. The genuine cases deserve genuine engagement: in subsistence farming contexts, livestock may be essential to food security and livelihoods in ways that make welfare reform complex. In these contexts, welfare improvements must be pursued in ways that do not undermine food security. In high-income countries, the food security argument against welfare improvement is usually spurious — the waste, inefficiency, and excess of industrial animal agriculture in these contexts does not reflect genuine food security needs. Distinguishing these contexts is important for credible welfare advocacy.