ACTIVISTS who have called for the closure of all slaughterhouses have been accused of using inaccurate science to back their claims.
Campaigners held anti-slaughterhouse marches in Europe, Japan and North America but faced a torrent of online criticism.
They claimed that factory farms are environmentally unfriendly and unsustainable but government experts said they had failed to check the science first.
Other assumptions that slaughterhouses were automatically cruel to all animals also came under fire.
One of the marches in Ottawa, Canada organised by the Kebek Animals Rights Association and the Ottawa Animal Defence League attracted a 300-strong crowd.
Yvonne Robinson, a technical advisor from Shared Services Canada which gives IT support to the government wrote: “I would encourage you to look at the resource impact from growing foods such as wheat in comparison to chicken farming.
“A great deal more land is required, displacing people and animals that could be living on that land.
“If you care about climate change, world hunger, etc., check the science – educate yourself then make the choices that you ethically support.
But don’t assume that growing corn is environmentally more friendly than fishing (for example) for your food.”
One farmer also wrote: “I grew up on a farm, my family has been farmers for generations and a smart farmer would never abuse an animal.
“I have no use for factory farms but they are quite different from a family farm where your livelihood depends on healthy, well fed animals.”
Another said: “I think it’s very interesting how you want to end slaughter house abuse, but as you march around protesting, you are wearing nice leather doc martens and other leather shoes.
“You protesters are no better then anyone else.”
Jevranne Martel from OADL said: “Eventually, we’d like to get to the point where animals are viewed as beings — that’s what they are. And just showing the public that there are many other options in 2017 and we don’t need to be consuming the bodies of innocent beings.”