On the question of animal exploitation, I’m an abolitionist who is open to pursuing welfarist reform, if I believe it is sufficiently impactful. However, for those who take a more rigid stance, it must be said in-ovo sexing does not fit neatly on one side of the divide between welfarism and abolitionism. Yes, in-ovo sexing reforms the egg industry. But, for the potentially billions of creatures affected each year, it’s not improving their treatment within an exploitative system; it’s stopping them from being born into the system altogether.

Mandating in-ovo sexing seems like one of the most sure-fire ways of reducing nonhuman suffering and premature death today. Unlike cultivated meat, which is still in early stages of development, the technology behind in-ovo sexing is commercially available right now. According to Innovate Animal Ag, 40 percent of the European Union’s commercial egg laying flock was sexed in-ovo. In contrast, fewer than 1 percent of the United States’ flock was. I asked other animal activists what they thought of the technology and the potential of campaigns centered around it.

Of course, some activists were opposed to such an effort. For instance, Lee Hall, author of On Their Own Terms: Animal Liberation for the 21st Century, argued mandatory in-ovo sexing doesn’t challenge humanity’s repression of the living world. “In untamed spaces, without our intrusions, birds can form relationships, feather their nests, lay their eggs, fledge their young, live and die in their natural time,” they said. “So, what do I think about in-ovo sexing, you ask? Can we promote it and also adhere to liberatory principles? Let’s keep it real. The answer is no.”

Ronnie Lee, founder of the Animal Liberation Front, didn’t see much difference between the destruction of potentially sentient life and chick culling, and thus argued nonhuman activists should focus their time on vegan education. I recalled from writing a biography of Lee that, in contrast to his generally left-wing views, he was pro-life, and wondered if this position influenced his perspective. Sadly, my understanding is the percentage of the population that identifies as vegan hasn’t grown significantly in decades of polling.

Merritt Clifton, editor of the Animals 24-7 news blog, made the most convincing case against animal activists dedicating resources to mandating in-ovo sexing, in my view. “Since the present system is hugely economically inefficient, I don’t think mandating the transition will be necessary,” he said. “The U.S. poultry industry is keenly observing the effects of the transition to in-ovo egg sexing underway in Germany and France, and will jump on it themselves as soon as they’re sure it really works.”

Ultimately, I’m not comfortable with an abolitionism that is content to allow billions of additional sentient creatures to be born into a murderous system every year for the sake of ideological purity. And while I’d love it if a universal transition to in-ovo sexing could be achieved without activist pressure, I’m not as confident as Clifton this will come to pass. Even if activists helped accelerate this transition by a short period, they would be sparing astronomic numbers of animals from brief, traumatic lives on factory farms.

I found myself much more aligned with Paul Shapiro, author of Clean Meat: How Growing Meat Without Animals Will Revolutionize Dinner and the World, who didn’t see an inherent conflict between supporting in-ovo sexing and supporting animal-free alternatives to eggs. “The central question should be whether a change helps animals,” he said. “One can pursue a world without animal exploitation while embracing opportunities to reduce the number of animals who are exploited today.”

Where I saw it as slightly more complicated, Richard Twine, who wrote The Climate Crisis and Other Animals, interpreted the debate as a classic reiteration of the question of how to advocate for welfare reform as an abolitionist. Nevertheless, he came to a similar conclusion as me, arguing that animal liberationists should make clear their long-term goals in this case. There’s an obvious tension between political pragmatism and ideological purity, and, in my view, campaigners need to find a balance for maximum effectiveness.

Finally, Matthew A. King, president of Christian Animal Rights Association, provided some ideas of what that balance might look like on a campaign dedicated to mandating in-ovo sexing. “Every policy proposal or press release advocating for in-ovo technology needs clear language supporting a complete transition toward plant-based food systems and the ultimate phasing out of animal agriculture,” he said. “Activists should advocate or protest against allowing egg producers to use in-ovo technology to market products as ‘humane’ or ‘cruelty-free.’”