Abstract The animal welfare battle: the production of affected ignorance in the Swedish meat industry debate Abstract Stockholm Business School, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden Abstract The Swedish animal welfare debate has for years focused on the meat industry, which sees animals not as sentient creatures but as production factors and commodities to be economically exploited. Although animal rights organizations have tried to change the meat industry and consumer behaviour, meat consumption is increasing. This could be explained as 'affected ignorance' generated by what one already knows but does not want to hear about. This paper discusses how various actors, such as meat industry companies, food retailers, and social movement organizations, frame animal welfare in the media debate with the use of discourses, which are important for producing or discouraging affected ignorance. The paper examines a discursive battle in which actors draw on various discourses over time but also hijack opponents' discourses. This use of discourses seems to blur the debate and confuse people and they will continue to eat meat from factory-farmed animals. Abstract ARTICLE HISTORY Introduction The issue of how animals are treated in the large-scale meat industry is repeatedly discussed in the Swedish mass media, with demands for change from animal rights organizations directed towards politicians and the meat industry. This media coverage describes a cruel food industry, which sees animals not as sentient creatures but as production factors (Porcher 2011) and commodities (Case 2005) to be economically exploited. This debate includes campaigns by social movement organizations (SMOs) to expose the cruel treatment of animals; for example, in 2009, members of an SMO broke into a factory farm at night and filmed suffering pigs. Similar protests have been used to take on the fur industry, resulting in the decline of fur farms and fur sales due to fear of activists and lower consumer interest. Despite the debate meat consumption remains high in Sweden and has even increased in recent years 1 . Although the consumption of organic alternatives, associated with better treatment of animals, has increased somewhat, it is lower than the consumption of conventional food. 2 Only a small portion of the population chooses not to consume meat and to be vegetarian or vegan. 3 This situation could be related to what Williams (2008) calls 'affected ignorance'. Affected ignorance is a kind of ignorance generated by what one knows but does not want to hear. It occurs when people refuse to acknowledge the connection between their actions and the resulting suffering of their victims, ask not to be informed of the practices causing the suffering, do not ask questions, or uncritically accept the dictates of custom and ideological constructions (Williams 2008) . Williams states that the lack of extensive public debate on factory farming and animal suffering is dependent on affected ignorance. She claims that the meat industry is a powerful force in our culture and society that prefers to sustain affected ignorance as the cultural norm when it comes to their practices. She also believes that we can resist affected ignorance and challenge meat industry influence if we take our role as virtuous knowers seriously and are critical of popular beliefs and accepted practices (Williams 2006 (Williams , 2008 . She also states that the current debate in the USA is like a whisper, a low-pitched public discussion that makes relevant information readily available to people who want to know more about industrial farming practices (Williams 2006) . Singer (2003) states that we as humans are capable of altruistic concern for other beings, but that imperfect information, powerful meat industry interests, and a desire not to know disturbing facts have limited the gains made by the US animal rights movement over 30 years of activism. Introduction This paper focuses on the Swedish media debate from 2003 to 2013, and illustrates how affected ignorance is actively produced by various actors' use of discourses in framing animal welfare in the debate. Considerable struggle is involved in this framing contest, in which the actors use a range of discourses and even hijack their opponents' discourses to seize control of the debate. This use of discourses blurs the debate, confusing people so that they do not change their behaviour and continue to eat meat from factory-farmed animals. Introduction The actors involved in this debate are large companies in the meat industry, farmers' associations, politicians, veterinarians, farmers, SMOs such as animal rights organizations, food retailers, and journalists. These actors' interactions in the animal rights debate relate to the fact that business organizations, such as meat industry actors, compete not only on a market but also in a discursive space in which winning the argument is important in order to gain legitimacy in the symbolic field (Tsoukas 1999) . Introduction The paper examines the arguments various actors use in the debate in both the media and their own campaigns and advertising. To further their interests, these actors draw on one or more specific discourses over time to sustain their factory farming business or improve the animals' conditions. Using critical discourse analysis (Fairclough 1993; Van Diijk 1993) , I refer to Stibbe (2001) , who observed that how animals are socially and culturally constructed influences how they are treated by human society, and that these cultural constructs are intimately bound up with language and discourse. Discourses can be seen as managing the minds of others, influencing their actions, and as essentially a function of text and talk (Van Diijk 1993) , making the media an important arena in which to analyse the actors' use of discourses. It is important to study 'how these practices, events and texts are ideologically shaped by relations of power and struggles over power' (Fairclough 1993, 135) in the animal welfare battle. Actors' control of discourses is related to their power and dominance; it is a way of managing social representations (Van Diijk 1993) , influencing or discouraging the production of affected ignorance. In this paper discourses are a way of framing a discussion. So, how the involved actors argue using various discourses relates to how they frame their views of animals and animal welfare for the public. As we will see, these frames can either produce or discourage affected ignorance. Animal studies Our relations with and views of animals have a long history recorded in human cultural texts, as was well described by Kalof (2007) in the field of human-animal studies. Kalof's book examines cultural representations of animals in Western societies from 30,000 BCE to 2000 CE and considers how these representations have changed with changing social conditions. While Kalof also described the cruel domestication of animals, Preece (2002) presented a historical review mainly of Western society's earlier writings from the sixth century BC to the early twentieth century focusing more on compassionate and respectful attitudes toward animals. Torssonen (2015) , on the other hand, discussed livestock welfare from a historical perspective and noted the birth of 'sellfare' during the twentieth century. The commodification of animal welfare was a response to public concern for factory animals, a concern that made the consumer responsible (Torssonen 2015) . Animal studies Studies of debates on meat production (Austgulen 2014) and animal welfare issues have focused on various countries (Harrison 1964; Jones 1996 Jones , 1997a Jones , 1997b Jones , 1997c Woods 2012) . As early as 1964, Harrison published Animal Machines, exposing the cruel treatment, in the UK, of animals bred and slaughtered using methods based on industrialized meat production. Woods (2012) , also studying the British context, considered how a new discourse of animal welfare emerged, partly in response to Harrison's book, becoming a term and target of state regulation in 1964-1971. However, divergent scientific and ethical perspectives among various actors in the debate prevented consensus on how animal welfare could be achieved in practice. Even though Harrison's (1964) book attracted publicity and resulted in improvements for animals (Woods 2012; Broom 2013; Fraser 2013) , factory farming methods are still present in many countries today. The role of the mass media in animal protection has also been studied in the USA, for example, by Jones (1996 Jones ( , 1997a Jones ( , 1997b Jones ( , 1997c , who tracked the history of media coverage of animal issues (1996) and evaluated the media's involvement in social movements (1997a), the use of advertising to promote animal protection (1997b), and the impact of media coverage on the outcome of public policy decisions concerning animals (1997c). Animal studies In the context of consumer policy studies, Austgulen (2014) studied the Norwegian debate on meat consumption in relation to environmental and climate harm. The author illustrated how two clashing discourses, presenting the problem and its solutions in different ways, were present in the media debate and policy documents, apparently producing confusion and hindering consumers from changing their consumption patterns to be more sustainable (Austgulen 2014) . Another study using a discourse perspective on animal welfare is that of Stibbe (2001) , who described how the language and discourses used by the animal product industries contribute to the oppression and exploitation of animals. Animal studies This paper also uses the discourse concept, but its novel contribution in relation to other animal welfare studies is that, in examining the media debate and the involved actors' active use of discourses, it relates these matters to the concept of affected ignorance and how it is both intentionally and unintentionally produced. Affected ignorance Affected ignorance is a philosophical concept dealing with moral issues on an individual level. Williams (2008) identified four forms of affected ignorance in seeking to understand how people relate to factory farming. The first form occurs when people refuse to acknowledge the connection between their actions and the consequent suffering of their victims. This is recognized when their activities are hidden by calculated language, animals being referred to as objects such as 'livestock', 'protein harvesters', and 'biomachines'. The second form occurs when people ask not to be informed of the nature of the practice in question. They do not want to hear about the cruel treatment of animals because it would be too upsetting and would ruin their appetite. The third form is manifested in the readiness of some people simply to avoid asking questions. Even if they suspect cruelty to animals they refuse to investigate the matter, not wanting to know that they might be complicit in an immoral practice. The fourth form of affected ignorance was explained by Williams (2008) as the widespread tendency to uncritically accept ideological constructions and the dictates of custom, dogmatic adherence to conventional rationalizations, and unwillingness to accept that majority opinions and widespread practices can be mistaken or cruel. In describing this ignorance, Singer (1975) cited the example of people who know that traditional family farms have been replaced by big business interests and yet cling to a vague belief that conditions cannot be too bad, or else the government or animal welfare societies would have done something about it. Financial profit and the convenience and ease of conforming to status quo values and practices make people ignorant. Williams (2008) recognized that farmers exploit this 'honest' ignorance, as they claim that their animals have good lives and are unwilling to notice animal suffering because the suffering does not count in an anthropocentric and profit-driven industry. The fourth form of affected ignorance is also related to cultural barriers as discussed by Moody-Adams (1994) and Levy (2003) , who pointed out that members of a particular culture are unable to recognize that certain actions and beliefs within that culture are wrong. This is the tendency to avoid acknowledging our human fallibility (Moody-Adams 1994) . Each of us tends to be satisfied with the truth of whatever opinions we have been brought up to hold, without reflecting on the fact that they are a result of our upbringing. Therefore, we simply avoid investigating the grounds of our opinions (Levy 2003) . Williams (2006 Williams ( , 2008 and Moody-Adams (1994) based this theoretical concept on the idea that affected ignorance makes one culpable despite one's culture, because one is choosing to ignore something that is morally important. Levy (2003) , on the other hand, criticized Moody-Adams's (1994) view of culpability, citing the example of Greek slavery to argue that people who are restrained by cultural norms are not culpable: the people of ancient Greece could not imagine how a society could function without slaves, so they did not regard slavery as a possible topic of moral debate. This example could be related to animal farming as well. People are used to eating meat and have always hunted or bred animals for food, so why should modern humans in industrialized societies who are used to consuming a lot of meat morally question how animals are bred in large-scale industrial production? Levy (2003) stated that cultures do not determine actions but close off certain possibilities to act. Moody-Adams (1994) , on the other hand, claimed that agents who act never simply follow a culturally prescribed script but are active interpreters of their cultures' norms and practices; they are therefore responsible for their actions. Affected ignorance Although affected ignorance is primarily an individual-level concept, this paper views it from the perspective of organizations. The media present organizations as the important actors in the animal welfare debate, and even though individual persons may make statements, they are still representing their organizations. As we will see, all forms of affected ignorance are important in the media debate. The fourth form plays a more prominent role, however, and using the concept of affected ignorance at an organizational level makes it possible to focus on how organizations promote this form when using particular discourses framing animal welfare and widespread practices. SMOs in a framing contest Movements and organizations must be seen in interaction (Zald, Morrill, and Rao 2005) , situated in a dynamic relational field in which the ongoing actions and interests of various actors all influence social movements' emergence, activity, and outcomes (Goldstone 2004) . Using the frame concept, the SMO literature has analysed the interaction between organizations (Gamson 1988 (Gamson , 1992 Benford and Hunt 1992; Skillington 1997; Benford and Snow 2000; Guérard, Bode, and Gustafsson 2013) . A frame suggests what an issue is about, outlining the basic source of controversy or concern (Gamson 1988) . Collective action frames are action-oriented sets of beliefs and meanings that inspire and legitimate the activities and campaigns of SMOs (Benford and Snow 2000) and collectively define a situation (Benford and Hunt 1992) . Collective action frames are constituted by the interactive, discursive processes that accompany these core framing tasks (Gamson 1992) . A collective action frame can contain an injustice component (Gamson 1992) , which the animal rights movement highlights as it protests the suffering of factory-farmed animals and advocates political and/or economic change. Collective action frames are continuously reconstituted throughout the interaction that occurs during movement gatherings and campaigns (Benford and Snow 2000) . An SMO's frame can be challenged by the SMO's own members or while interacting with other organizations (Benford and Snow 2000) . Opponents' attempts to undermine or neutralize an SMO's version of reality (i.e. counterframing) can occur within complex, multi-organizational arenas, giving rise to framing contests (Benford and Snow 2000) in which organizations deter and divert movements (Zald, Morrill, and Rao 2005) . SMOs in a framing contest These framing contests have been the subject of research into the impact of the mass media on the construction of social reality (Scheufele 1999) and into how the media frame movements (Entman and Rojecki 1993; Baylor 1996) and represent activists' claims (Baylor 1996; Gamson and Modigliani 1989; Jones 1996 Jones , 1997a . Journalists often seek stories that can be framed in terms of conflict (Arpan et al. 2006) , and the more extreme and dramatic an event, the more likely it is to get media coverage (Baylor 1996) . Media organizations also draw on their environment for the 'raw materials' they use to create their product (Curran, Gurevitch, and Woollacott 1982/2005) . SMOs also influence the media, as journalists adopt the frames they promote and incorporate them into their coverage of issues and events (Scheufele 1999) . Also, movement activists depend on the mass media for information on the standpoints of other actors relevant to the issues that concern them, and to learn about others' reactions to their actions (Koopmans 2004) . This also holds for those with whom they interact. So, all actors use the mass media as a crucial source of information about one another's views and behaviour, evaluating and adapting their own strategies as a result of the reactions they provoke in the public sphere (Koopmans 2004) . SMOs in a framing contest In this paper, the aim is to discuss how the actors frame animal welfare in the Swedish media debate and how they use various discourses in an attempt to produce or discourage affected ignorance. Method Animal welfare issues connected to factory farming have been debated in Sweden since the 1980s, but I believe my first encounter with the animal welfare debate was in 2003 when I started to follow a series of articles in the Swedish morning newspaper Svenska Dagbladet (SvD) on the suffering of factory-farmed animals. This newspaper was not known for publishing articles criticizing business and industrial practices. The newspaper ran an opinion poll on its website when it published the first article, about the chicken industry, asking readers whether the article would influence them to change their behaviour and stop eating chicken. Most of the 1000 respondents indicated that they did not care about the chickens and would continue to buy and eat chicken. On seeing that result, I started to wonder why most people did not react to the article, which described the suffering of chickens. I continued to follow the series of SvD articles discussing the factory farming issue. This resulted in a research paper (Schwartz 2003) and book chapter (Schwartz 2006) . My personal interest in animal welfare issues, including my earlier experience as a volunteer in an organization that aimed to mobilize volunteers as farm workers, also prompted me to continue to follow the animal welfare debate in the media in the years following the publication of that series. My personal interest in the debate is therefore the starting point for discussing and analysing the debate in this paper. My personal views of animal suffering may influence my analysis of the debate and I may be more critical of how certain actors, such as meat companies and farmers' organizations, use various discourses to sustain affected ignorance, even though I find that other actors, such as SMOs and food retailers, also produce affected ignorance. Affected ignorance is something I recognize in my own behaviour when I buy and eat meat. Although I often look for organic meat, I sometimes buy conventional meat produced in factory farms, despite knowing that they cause animal suffering. Affected ignorance is a complex issue to address. Method Using secondary sources, such as written and video material, this paper studies the debate concerning the poor conditions of animals in large-scale meat production. It is based on a study of the media debate over a 10-year period, which gives an understanding of how the actors have been involved in and tackled the debate over time. The empirical data are based on a qualitative study I conducted in 2003 of a series of articles published in Svenska Dagbladet in April and May 2003. The studied articles concentrated on the chickens' situation as well as on slaughter methods and the treatment of other species, such as cows and pigs. I found these articles as a reader of the newspaper Svenska Dagbladet. From 2013 to 2014, I followed how this debate had evolved since 2003 based on news articles from several of Sweden's largest newspapers and on Swedish TV and radio news coverage. From 2004 to 2013, various initiatives had made an impact and animal issues were being debated in the media. , the chickens' situation was again raised by journalists, and in 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2013, pigs were the main focus due to SMO campaigns. Data were found using Google with search terms such as djurskyddsfrågor ('animal welfare issues'), djurdebatt ('animal debate'), kycklingdebatt ('chicken debate'), and grisdebatt ('pig debate'). Also, the database Mediearkivet Retriever was used with search terms such as djurskyddsfrågor ('animal welfare issues'), djurdebatt ('animal debate'), kycklingar ('chickens') and grisar ('pigs'). I started searching using more general terms such as 'animal welfare issues' and 'animal debate', which revealed the kind of meat industry animals being debated. I continued searching about these species using the terms 'chicken debate' and 'chickens' and 'pig debate' and 'pigs' to find more articles. The websites of Sweden's main newspapers 4 and Swedish television (Svt) were also searched, and 56 articles were found. The media as a source of data My use of the media as a data source is based on an understanding of the media as a sense-maker, in that they take part in developing a meaningful framework for understanding complex phenomena, acting as a sense-giver that influences sense-making and meaning construction among their audiences regarding specific definitions of reality (Hellgren et al. 2002) . I have delimited the material to the animal welfare debate as presented in the media; other SMO campaigns that were not picked up by the media will not be included in the discussion. This is because the mass media have a central role in framing issues for the attentive public (Gamson 1988; Gamson and Modigliani 1989) , constituting a site where various social groups, institutions, and ideologies struggle over the definition and construction of social reality (Gurevitch and Levy 1985) and competing ways of sense-making (McNair 1998). However, the media can also use its power to 'manufacture consent' with the privileged groups in society depending on how media reports on these groups' activities and give them space in media (Herman and Chomsky 1988/2002) . SMOs' own media have the limitation of preaching only to the converted (Koopmans 2004) , and events that are not widely reported have little or no social significance (McNair 1998). News coverage shows who gets to speak, and I am aware that the journalists ask the questions, select what actors to feature in their coverage, and decide what should be retold and how. This means that journalists are active debaters and discourse setters and are therefore also actors in the animal welfare debate, since they construct their narratives around their own values and beliefs (McNair 1998) . Journalists' working norms and practices add considerable value to the process: journalists contribute their own frames and metaphors, drawing on a popular culture that they share with their audience (Gamson 1988; Gamson and Modigliani 1989) . The media as a source of data To complement the media as a source of information on how other actors are responding to the media debate, the empirical material also includes other written material such as the websites and advertising campaigns of the Swedish meat company Swedish Meats/Scan, the Swedish food retailer Coop, and the SMOs Djurrättsalliansen (the Animal Rights Alliance) and Djurens rätt (Animal Rights Sweden). Discourse analysis The present research method is based on critical discourse analysis, which is used to explore the causal and determinative relationships among discursive practices, events, and texts, and wider social and cultural structures, relationships, and processes (Fairclough 1993) . This is done by systematically analysing spoken and written texts, forming systematic analyses of social contexts (Fairclough 1992) . Focusing on texts in critical discourse analysis also emphasises the role of language, language use, discourse, and communicative events in the (re)production of dominance and inequality (Van Diijk 1993) . Critically analysing the role of discourse reveals the power and dominance in the battle between actors, in which actors try to win their arguments by exploiting various discourses. In this discursive battle, affected ignorance can be produced through the ideological control of consumers, who dominate and oppress animals by choosing to buy meat from factory-farmed animals. Discourse analysis The research method entailed locating discourses in the debate and following the debate over time, considering how the discourses help frame animals and animal welfare, when and how the discourses have an impact on the debate (due to which actors are using them), and what forms of affected ignorance the actors with the help of the discourses seem to produce or discourage. Discourse analysis The critical discourse analysis of the newspaper articles entails studying the texts in which the journalists present the actions and statements of various actors. When analysing the texts, I searched for how the actors talked and presented their views of animal welfare and factory-farmed animals. I analysed the kinds of discourses recognizable in their statements from interviews presented in the articles and from materials used by the journalists in describing various actors and their views. In the texts produced by the actors themselves, I also searched for how they talked about animal welfare when presenting their cause and how they used different discourses in texts such as advertising and campaign materials. The discourses I recognized in the various texts related to the actors' views of animal welfare, which I interpreted as either discouraging or producing affected ignorance among the readers of the articles and advertising campaigns. Discourse analysis The discourses that emerged in the texts were the animal rights, economic rationale, nationalistic, sustainability, and health discourses. The animal rights discourse focuses on animal welfare and the importance of allowing animals to behave naturally and not be treated cruelly in factory farms. It presents animals as sentient creatures that share with humans a capacity to suffer, meaning that they, like us, have interests (Singer 1975 (Singer , 2003 . The economic rationale discourse sees the animals in factory farming as effective and productive 'workers' (Porcher 2011): chickens grow very fast and need little feed, cows' milk production increases, etc. The nationalistic discourse constructs solidarity with one's own national group as well as a readiness to exclude the other from this constructed collective, as national identity concerns stereotypical notions of other nations and their cultures, history, etc. (De Cillia, Reisigl, and Wodak 1999) . This discourse highlights one's own country as superior to others. The sustainability discourse draws on arguments such as the need for solutions and changed behaviours in order to solve environmental and societal problems. Finally, the health discourse focuses on human health in relation to what we eat, but also on animal health in relation to disease. In the analysis, I discuss how the actors' use of discourses frames their views of animal welfare and how that relates to the production of various forms of affected ignorance or to resistance to affected ignorance. Discourse analysis In the next section I present several examples from the animal welfare debate in the Swedish media from 2003 to 2013, illustrating how the actors contributed to the production of affected ignorance or tried to encourage people to resist it. The story is organized according to the kind of animal in focus and according to themes related to the critique and to how actors defended and responded to the critique, influencing the direction of the debate. First, however, I give some background and present the development of animal rights organizations in Sweden. Discourse analysis The Swedish animal welfare debate, [2003] [2004] [2005] [2006] [2007] [2008] [2009] [2010] [2011] [2012] [2013] In Sweden, campaigning for animal rights started in 1882 when the organization now known as Animal Rights Sweden (Djurens rätt) was founded (djurens rätt. se/"om djurens rätt"). Its policy is to work within the boundaries of existing law, engaging in awareness-raising campaigns and lobbying regarding animal experimentation, fur farms, and the meat industry Lindblom 2012, 2013) . In the 1980s, the Swedish author Astrid Lindgren was engaged in public debate regarding factory-farmed animals, and in 1987, on her 80th birthday, the Swedish prime minister presented her with a new Swedish Animal Welfare Act (1988) that emphasized animals' rights to behave naturally and move around freely, for example, by requiring that cows graze outdoors in the summer and that laying hens not be kept in cages. In the mid 1990s, the public debate on animal rights in Sweden became more heated, mainly as a result of a series of attacks by animal rights extremists calling themselves Militant Vegans (Militanta Veganer). These attacks were part of a new style of violent campaigning focusing mainly on fur farms, meat delivery trucks, and restaurants. The Militant Vegans of today can be found within the Animal Liberation Front (Djurens befrielsefront, founded 1985) and the Animal Rights Alliance (Djurrättsalliansen, founded 2005), organizations that also take illegal actions and conduct undercover investigations of fur and food farms in the name of animal rights (AnimalRightsExtremism 2012). The chicken debate In May 2003 (Svenska Dagbladet, 13, 14, and 16 May) and November 2008 (Svenska Dagbladet, 14, 16, 17, 18 , and 21 November) the conditions of chickens were debated in the Swedish media in a series of articles in the Swedish morning paper Svenska Dagbladet (SvD). These articles did not refer to any specific SMO campaign; instead, SvD presented the newspaper's own investigation of the food industry. Critique: mistreated chickens The media coverage, based on research papers, manuals from chicken companies, and interviews with researchers, veterinarians, and chicken industry representatives, framed the chicken industry as cruel with a view to raising readers' awareness and encouraging them to resist the second and third forms of affected ignorance, in which readers do not investigate or inform themselves. The coverage told how the increased productivity of fast-growing chickens led to suffering for the chickens. Their selected-for rapid growth results in chickens that cannot stand on their legs because their cartilage does not ossify fast enough to support their rapidly increasing weight. Feed that stimulates very fast growth is used. Injuries are also caused by insufficient exercise due to crowding and by the process of loading machines for slaughter (Svenska Dagbladet 13 May 2003 . Critique: mistreated chickens Two large American breeding multinationals, Ross and Cobb-Vantress, that dominate the chicken industry and sell chickens to Swedish farmers were also profiled. Quotations from their manuals were cited to illustrate how the two companies inform farmers and market their chicken breeds, Ross 308 and Cobb 500. Critique: mistreated chickens The farmer will achieve maximum broiler growth efficiency through adjusting appropriate combinations of stocking density, light, feed, atmospheric humidity, and temperature for each type of chicken. These two quotations are from documents not intended for the public but for farmers in the meat industry. The language of the texts illustrates the focus on profit maximization in the chicken industry, where the chickens are seen as a production factor with little consideration given to the fact that they are animals with certain needs for natural behaviour. The animals are made into objects, dissolving the connection between meat production and animal suffering (Williams 2008) . The chickens are commodified and de-animalized since their identity is erased (Hamilton and McCabe 2016) . On the other hand, the statement that 'the adaptability of Ross 308 allows it to maintain its excellent performance even when the circumstances are unfavourable' acknowledges that chickens can suffer in this industry, but that these chickens are robust and nevertheless manage to deliver what the farmers want despite poor treatment. This relates to the first form of affected ignorance (Williams 2008) , whereby the chicken industry helps produce affected ignorance among the farmers, who refuse to acknowledge the connection between their actions and the consequent suffering of their victims. Internal communications to farmers in the meat industry encourage them to disregard pain and suffering for the sake of profits (Stibbe 2001) , implying that moral values must be sacrificed in the name of productivity (Porcher 2011) . By presenting these documents to the readers of the article, the newspaper revealed how the large companies, Ross and Cobb-Vantress, were directing farmers to maintain an attitude framing the chickens as production factors or commodities and not as sentient creatures. Critique: mistreated chickens Response: protecting the chickens Three days after the articles appeared in SvD, one of Sweden's largest food retailers, Coop Konsum (a division of the corporation Coop, with 477 stores), started a large advertising campaign to show that they were taking a stand for chickens and would not support the cruelty involved in egg production in which hens are kept in cages: Critique: mistreated chickens We have stopped selling eggs from hens in cages. Take 21 fellow passengers with you in the subway cab and you will understand why. (Metro 17 May 2003, own translation) Coop Konsum also set up seven installations in Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Malmö in which people were placed in large cages and passers-by were invited to join them in order to feel how cramped it was to be a hen in a cage (Coop press release 19 May 2003; Svenska Dagbladet 20 May 2003) . This campaign was lauded for its originality and creativity, winning awards for best consumer advertising in both Sweden and the USA (Coop press release 1 November 2004). With this campaign, Coop Konsum's framing strategy in the animal welfare debate was to assume the role of an SMO. It hired people from an agency to act as activists, in order to attract attention and get consumers to resist the second and third forms of affected ignorance by informing them about cruel factory farms. In this case, we see the opposite to the de-animalization of chickens with the people in the cages being animalized. The aim of the campaign, according to a Coop press release (1 November 2004), was to promote organic eggs and eggs from free-range hens, since Coop Konsum had decided in 2002 to stop selling eggs from caged hens. It was not until 2014 that this decision was completely implemented in all 665 Coop stores in Sweden, including in its discount supermarkets; in 2015, Coop received the Good Egg Award from the organization Compassion in World Farming (Coop press release 10 June 2015). Critique: mistreated chickens In June 2003, Coop continued the animal welfare campaign and used humorous print and TV advertisements featuring happy anthropomorphized animals. For example, one ad showed a hen driving a motorcycle in a beautiful landscape accompanied by the text 'Choose organic food and allow more animals to have a better life'. All of the advertisements in the organic food campaign included the tagline 'Coop -a little step towards happier animals'. In promoting organic meat, Coop this time framed the animal welfare issue in humorous terms, presenting an idealized view of animal farming. They did not explain the problems in conventional animal factories or how organic animal production is better for the animals. This framing strategy could produce the second and third forms of affected ignorance, since the addressed consumers would not need to worry about either the suffering of factory-farmed animals or how animals in organic production are treated. Although Coop seemed to be on the SMOs' side in the debate, trying to sway public opinion towards more humane treatment of animals and influence people to resist affected ignorance, Coop also contributed to affected ignorance with this campaign. Marketing activities do this by removing industrially farmed animals from the sight of consumers, to ensure that the animal is engineered to fit changing consumer demands (Desmond 2010) . Redirecting the debate: Swedish chickens are healthy and climate smart In the following years there were some articles regarding chickens but no extensive debate (Dagens . In a new series of SvD articles in 2008, the Swedish chicken industry and farmers reacted to the criticism expressed in the earlier articles, assuring consumers that their chickens are free of salmonella and not fed with antibiotics, and pointing out that breeding and slaughtering practices are more strictly regulated in Sweden than in any other country (Svenska Dagbladet 16 November 2008) . By using these arguments to frame animal welfare, the chicken industry could produce the fourth form of affected ignorance (Williams 2008) , inducing people to accept industry practices as better for their own health and for the welfare of chickens in Sweden. Redirecting the debate: Swedish chickens are healthy and climate smart The chicken industry also reacted to and tried to redirect the debate in their marketing, claiming that eating chicken is climate smart and a way to save the planet. The climate claim was related to the chickens' high feed conversion (1.75 kg of feed gives 1 kg of chicken) and low emissions of methane compared with beef and pork (Svenska Dagbladet 16 November 2008). In the same article, Jimmy Samuelsson, the CEO of one of Sweden's largest chicken farming operations, said, 'The climate threat affects us all. We may have a small chance, but only if everyone is pulling in the same direction' (own translation). His contribution is the production of climate-smart chickens (Svenska Dagbladet 16 November 2008). Redirecting the debate: Swedish chickens are healthy and climate smart Taking up the climate issue -a new angle in the sustainability debate at that time in Swedenseemed to be a strategy for shifting the focus away from animal welfare issues and standing up as a responsible company. In the CEO's anthropocentric view, the factory farming of chickens was related to the first form of affected ignorance (Williams 2008) , as he emphasized productivity and pollution prevention and seemed to imply that the chickens should sacrifice something in the struggle to save the world. The chicken industry thus tried to reach consumers who were worried about the climate and environmental issues by counterframing chickens as a climate-smart meat alternative. This could give people an excuse to continue buying factory-farmed chickens as they could feel like responsible consumers doing something for the environment. Here I recognize Williams's (2008) second form of affected ignorance, in which the consumer does not want to be informed of the cruel treatment of chickens but instead prefers to accept the chicken industry's shift in focus from animal welfare to the task of saving the planet. The chicken industry's framing strategy is also connected to Williams's (2008) fourth form of affected ignorance, wherein the chicken industry wants people to uncritically accept the industry's stance in the climate debate and not question their ideological construction of being climate smart at the expense of the chickens' welfare. Redirecting the debate: trust the Swedish animal welfare act The poultry expert Lena Lindström, from the Animal Rights Alliance, presented her views of the problems with intensive chicken breeding in an article. She too seemed to rely on Swedish legislation: Redirecting the debate: trust the Swedish animal welfare act According to the Animal Welfare Act, it is prohibited to conduct breeding that could cause suffering to animals, so today's fast-growing chickens would have been banned if they had been bred within the borders of Sweden. I think we should put pressure on the multinational breeders. Imports should not be allowed, but just like with the monster Belgian Blue bull, you cannot because of the free trade rules. (Svenska Dagbladet 18 November 2008, own translation) She tried to break through affected ignorance by attacking the breeding companies (such as Ross and Cobb-Vantress) and saw the impossibility of changing free trade rules and stopping the import of the chickens. I also see, however, that as a spokesperson of an SMO, she risked producing the fourth form of affected ignorance (Williams 2008) , defending the Swedish Animal Welfare Act and relying on Swedish farmers to follow the law and not breed 'monster animals'. Redirecting the debate: trust the Swedish animal welfare act Despite the animal welfare debate, the consumption of factory chickens has increased and the chickens still suffer from health problems, although certain conditions have improved, according to veterinarian Muayyed Jamil. He said that the 2003 articles and the attention they drew to animal welfare issues in the chicken industry started an important process, and that today conditions for chickens are much better (Svenska Dagbladet 16 November 2008). This statement from an expert could also help to redirect the debate and produce the fourth form of affected ignorance among readers relying on his judgment. The cow and pig debate Critique: mistreated cows and pigs Response: well-treated cows and pigs in Sweden These articles prompted a reaction from the meat company Swedish Meats/Scan. In May 2003, Scan started an SEK 10 million (EUR 1.1 million) advertising campaign in the largest Swedish newspapers at the same time as a prosecutor was investigating the mistreatment of animals in some of Scan's slaughterhouses (Svenska Dagbladet 18 May 2003) . The headline of the advertisement was, 'Our four holy cows -and a pig' (my translation), and the following text stated: Response: well-treated cows and pigs in Sweden . We sell only Swedish meat from our own farms, from fillet of beef to sausages. . We raise animals in line with their natural behaviour: the cows are allowed to graze outdoors and the pigs can move around freely. . We will be the best in animal transportation in Europe: for that reason we demand more than the law does and conduct an additional inspection of our trucks, and our drivers are trained to prevent cruelty to animals. . We will never give antibiotics to healthy animals: it would make the animals grow faster, but we are not in a hurry. The advertisement makes various statements, including claiming that Scan exceeds Sweden's strict legislation, which is better for the animals, and referring to the problem of antibiotic resistance in humans. Scan also hijacks (Welford 1997 ) the SMOs' arguments, claiming that Swedish farmers take good care of their animals, allowing them to behave naturally. Response: mistreated pigs The SMO Animal Rights Sweden criticized the campaign and the statement that pigs were able to move around freely: 'The pigs are not moving outdoors, are unable to dig in the mud, and never leave their boxes before slaughtering' (Svenska When asked why Scan was spending so much money on this campaign, the information director replied, 'It is important to inform consumers about what we are doing for the animals -otherwise Scan will be ruined' (Svenska Dagbladet 18 May 2003, own translation). This argument illustrates the power of the critical newspaper articles, as the scandal they unleashed could threaten the whole business. Scan seemed to be using the advertising campaign to muddy the waters in order to restore its legitimacy, accusing meat companies in other countries of using cruel methods and stating that such methods were not used by Swedish farmers, whose practices were best for the animals and should not be questioned. Scan emotionalized the issue (Hellgren et al. 2002) to the consumers, claiming that the meat industry and animal welfare legislation in Sweden were superior to those in other countries. Scan's buffering strategy was to defend the status quo and try to delegitimize the SMOs by attacking their cause (Guérard, Bode, and Gustafsson 2013) , producing the fourth form of affected ignorance and endeavouring to gain the consumers' trust and the power in the debate. ). This campaign's method of telling the naked truth relates to Derrida's concept of animal malaise, wherein we as humans are seen naked by an animal that judges us from its point of view (Desmond 2010 ). The consumers not only felt sorry for the pigs, but also felt ashamed at being complicit with this industry when they saw the videos in which the pigs looked into the camera. With the videos of suffering pigs, the SMOs tried to kill the myth of well-treated factory-farmed animals in Sweden. The videos showed practices of which the public had little knowledge, since animals are raised in factories in the distant countryside. In a TV news report, Malin Gustafsson of the Animal Rights Alliance referred to and criticized the economic rationale of the pig farming industry: The pig debate What is important to say is that this farm is no exception. There is systemic error. The entire pig industry is structured to be as efficient as possible, to make as much money as possible. (Svt.se 24 November 2009, own translation) With the help of the media, the SMO was using the campaign to influence people to resist affected ignorance, informing them of the situation so they would not accept the meat industry's framing of animal welfare and encouraging them instead to protest as responsible consumers by not buying meat. Response: the scapegoat resigns One of the farmers, who was the Board Chair of Swedish Meats and a board member at Scan, the Farmers' National Association (LRF), and the Swedish Animal Health Service (a veterinary company), was identified by the SMO as mistreating his pigs, and he resigned after facing massive media criticism ( I believe that in the current situation I cannot fulfil my duties … I disassociate myself from any mistreatment of animals -it is simply unacceptable. I also understand the reactions to the pictures shown; they have damaged the entire agrarian movement. (Svt.se 28 November 2009, own translation) Here we see the power of the media and how a small SMO, using the media, was able to influence the debate. It questioned the factory farming sector in general, and specifically the chair of Swedish Meats, who was identified as a villain and made a scapegoat. This illustrates how losing legitimacy in the symbolic field of interaction can weaken economically strong organizations, giving small organizations advantages in the debate (Tsoukas 1999) . The SMO was disappointed, however, because even though the chair resigned, he would still continue pig farming and continue mistreating his pigs (Svenska Dagbladet 1 December 2009). Response: consumers buy more organic ham Consumers reacted and the demand for organic Christmas ham increased: it was already sold out by mid-December (Norra Skåne 17 December 2009). The large food retailers in Sweden did not notice any decline in the total sales of Christmas ham, but that year the demand for organic ham was greater due to the pig debate (Norra Skåne 17 December 2009; Svenska Dagbladet 22 June 2010). In an opinion poll conducted by Sifo (a Swedish public opinion research organization) in mid December 2009, one-third of respondents said they were considering buying organic ham or no ham at all for Christmas. However, only 6% of all Christmas ham sold was organic, so instead of not buying ham once the organic ham was sold out, consumers resumed buying the conventional ham. Richard Tellström, an ethnologist, stated that this was because the food we eat at Christmas expresses social pressure and expectations, making it too difficult for people to refrain from eating it (Svenska Dagbladet 28 December 2009). The consumer reaction shows that individuals have opportunities to stand, if only for a moment, 'outside' conventional attitudes and practices (Williams 2008) and resist affected ignorance. The consumers reacted briefly, but after a while chose or were compelled to buy the conventional ham due to cultural norms. So the fourth form of affected ignorance (Moody-Adams 1994; Levy 2003; Williams 2008 ) remained as the consumers accepted animal suffering, since the inclination to uphold expected Christmas rituals was so strong. Redirection of the debate: SMOs are blamed Of the 92 farmers who were identified by the Animal Rights Alliance and reported to police in 2009, only one was prosecuted for mistreating his pigs, and in November 2010 the court acquitted him. The SMO saw this as an indication that the law was weak and that the juridical system was allowing the mistreatment of pigs. While the farmers went free, two of the activists were fined for filming (Svt.se 17 November 2010). The punishment of the activists and lack of legal sanctions against the farmers delegitimized the SMO campaign in favour of the farmers and the LRF and weakened the SMO's influence in the debate. This illustrates how normative structures limit what are considered appropriate practices of social movements and that regulatory structures limit the range of tactics that movements can employ (Campbell 2005) . This was also the case in 2013 when the SMO illegally made new films at 15 pig farms; this time, however, they did not report any farmers to the police due to their prior experience of being punished (Svenska Dagbladet 5 December 2013; Svt.se 4 December 2013). The SMO claimed that to encourage resistance to the second and third forms of affected ignorance (i.e. people not knowing or not wanting to know), 'our main idea is to get the pictures out to the public. We believe that people have the right to see how pigs are farmed' (Svenska Dagbladet 5 December 2013; Svt.se 4 December 2013, own translation). Redirection of the debate: denial and increased controls and certifications The LRF defended the farmers and criticized the videos for not showing a true and representative view of Swedish pig farming. Helena Jonsson, Chair of LRF said, Pictures of sick, injured, or dead animals are always unpleasant to see, whether you work with animals or not. Swedish pig farmers work hard to maintain and improve animal welfare. Abuses can never be accepted. For that reason, the images that were shown on TV do not give a true picture of pig production in
{'paper_id': '149775407', 'title': 'The animal welfare battle: the production of affected ignorance in the Swedish meat industry debate', 's2_url': 'https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:149775407', 'source': 'S2ORC'}