I've recently been reading about the way animals are reared and killed for consumption and it's pretty upsetting. Though I've always been concious about the decisions I make regarding meat and egg purchases, reading the details of the unnecessary suffering that animals go through just to produce cheap low quality meat is really upsetting and spurred me to start a thread about it, in case some of you don't already make awesome purchasing decisions when buying your meat. Yay!
I hope you guys choose your meat/eggs/milk wisely. Please always choose free range, freedom farmed meat. If you can't afford to buy free range meat then don't buy meat at all, don't support intensive farming. It's only a few £s difference and helps to support farmers who treat their animals with respect and give them a decent life before they end up on a plate. If you can't afford meat, buy some tasty vegetables or a nice bit of fish instead - they're cheaper and probably better for you!
Lots of people don't think about what they're buying. They buy the cheapest meat available without a thought to the suffering of the animal that meat came from. Please don't support this
If you want to be especially cool and sexy and awesome, you would also ask restaurants if the meat they serve is from free range animals, and you would not buy products containing eggs that you don't know are from free range hens. I admit this may be easier for me than it is for some, as I live in Brighton where people are quite conscious about this sort of thing. But make an effort anyway plx, because that makes you super extra ultra cool.
People who buy cheap intensively farmed meat are assholes. Don't be an asshole! Buy Free Range! Think of the animals! Meat from sad animals tastes bitter and salty and sad.
In all seriousness there is no excuse for buying intensively farmed meat so please, please think of the difference you make by buying free range :)
Bye! :)
ADDITIONAL VIEWING:
Imagine being born, living and dying here (http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00033/IN4785275Animal-Aid-_33436s.jpg)
Be glad you're not a chicken too (http://www.channel4.com/food/images/mb/Channel4/4Food/ontv/food-season08/jamie-fowl-dinners/gallery/08_densley_packed_chickens_gallery--gt_full_width_landscape.jpg)
Happy pigs :) (http://www.moonbeamsland.co.uk/assets/images/pigs-outside-field.jpg)
Healthy happy turkeys (http://www.grassfedtraditions.com/images/pastured_turkeys.jpg)
Happy cows! (http://www.lonelylanefarms.com/assets/images/Free_Range.jpg)
Sad cows :( I wish I was a burger already (http://www.hsus.org/web-files/Cow/540x360_cows_vealrow_fs.jpg)
This video will make you very unhappy. I love eating meat, but this vid brings a tear to my eye. :'( :'( :'( :'(
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-513747926833909134
Doesn't have to be that way if you buy freedom farmed meat :)
You know, if we completely went back to nature, and only ate hunted animals, they wouldn't exactly be happy campers when they died. In fact, given the human primitive style of relay racing to wear the sweatgland-lacking large mammals down, they would likely be more then a little hot and bothered.
So the absolutely most natural way, induces terror and panic in the flesh we eat.
But unfortunately, natural hunter gatherer tactics would not provide enough food for the world population as it stands today.
Plus, the term 'free-range' is so loose as far as the law goes, that most farms who claim this 'distinction', aren't exactly the ol' timey farmyards of good ol' yester year, with the chickens pecking at grubs and grains. Nope, it often just means they get to wander around densely packed in a covered enclosure. So instead of a Tokyo tube hotel existence, it's a Beijing rush hour existence.
Big improvement.
To be a prey species is fraught with peril. Farming has given them a roof over their head, and no need to worry about food.
Their are worse fates.
I don't wish to sound insensitive but I'm really not fussy about where my meat or eggs come from. That doesn't mean I don't feel sorry for the little blighters, but I buy cheaper meat because I'm tight. I probably could just about afford to splash out on free-range, Eco-friendly, dolphin-friendly, fair-trade, non-GM food (or whatever the latest hyphenated moral guilt fad of the year is), but if I'm brutally honest... I'm trying to save up for an Xbox 360 and could do with all the extra £s I can save.
Sorry little chickens. I feel for you, I really do. But I'm a growing lad with no disposable income.
Quote from: lo_res_man on Sat 10/01/2009 02:36:50
You know, if we completely went back to nature, and only ate hunted animals, they wouldn't exactly be happy campers when they died. In fact, given the human primitive style of relay racing to wear the sweatgland-lacking large mammals down, they would likely be more then a little hot and bothered.
So the absolutely most natural way, induces terror and panic in the flesh we eat.
But unfortunately, natural hunter gatherer tactics would not provide enough food for the world population as it stands today.
Plus, the term 'free-range' is so loose as far as the law goes, that most farms who claim this 'distinction', aren't exactly the ol' timey farmyards of good ol' yester year, with the chickens pecking at grubs and grains. Nope, it often just means they get to wander around densely packed in a covered enclosure. So instead of a Tokyo tube hotel existence, it's a Beijing rush hour existence.
Big improvement.
To be a prey species is fraught with peril. Farming has given them a roof over their head, and no need to worry about food.
Their are worse fates.
I can't really make out your point... are you saying that because there are worse fates than being eaten, it shouldn't matter how an animal is treated? Or because you can never be 100% sure that meat is free range when it says it is, there's no point in trying?
That's a pretty ridiculous thing to say, if so. Or are you just pointing it out? Obviously some places are not so "free range" as others but making conscious choices and doing a bit of research is quite easy, it shouldn't stop anybody from trying!
Of course the world could not survive as it is using normal hunter gatherer techniques, but as it is most people eat far too much meat anyway, especially now that it can be farmed so intensively at the cost of animal welfare. It doesn't need to be this way, and there really is no reasonable excuse to justify that it is. Too many people in this world are grossly overweight and could probably do with cutting down on their intake of meat amongst other foods...
Also Stupot that's thee most selfish thing I've heard in a long while. Saying that you "feel" for the chickens is I assume a sarcastic statement since if you did, even vaguely, you would definitely not have the selfish attitude that you've just displayed. Actively choosing non-intensively farmed meat is not the latest moral fad, neither is the welfare and happiness of animals. Choosing free range is not the same as choosing organic or choosing non-GM - even though these things are arguably advantageous they are completely different issues.
It often costs the same or only very slightly less to make a move to free range, especially when it comes to eggs. Please consider it. Paying what, 20p extra for free range eggs is not going to stop you from saving for an xbox, but the money
will go to a worthy cause.
I'm amazed at how many of the people replying to this thread have already shown a really terrible disregard for life. Appalling.
I already try to eat organic, free-range food because it actually tastes better. But as long as the fast food giants stay in business, there will never be a lack of need for intensive farming.
Just don't make me call fish sea-kittens. What drugs are these people on. http://www.peta.org/sea_kittens/ (http://www.peta.org/sea_kittens/)
I really do apologize Meowster...under normal circumstances I completely and wholeheartedly agree with whatever it is you say, whether I've read it or not...and sometimes even whether you've said it or not!
However, on this I must completely and wholeheartedly disagree with whatever this thread is about.
Frankly, from a consumer-based standpoint it makes no difference to me whether my Pork Chop (http://www.porkchopband.com/)s, Turkey Leg (http://video.aol.com/video-detail/turkey-leg/2846516103)s, or Haggis McMuttons come from a happy wonderful field of delightfulness, fun, and joy or a cramped dark hellholish Sawesque death-dungeon. The end result is the same. Meat on my plate.
I understand the "animal rights" argument, but as I'm not sympathetic toward the cause I don't honestly care where it comes from. Generally, I will buy whatever is the cheapest product of reasonable quantity and quality based upon what I paid for.
So if they start labeling half the ground beef as "Free Range" but the price for that is $0.15 (or even just $0.01) higher than the same product without the "Free Range" label, I promise I'll choose the one without the label. If it's the same price...it's a complete toss-up. If it's cheaper (again, even by $0.01), I'll take the FR.
As sarcastically as I began this post, I want to make it clear: I don't hate animals. In all honesty, I'd prefer to think that they lead happy and full lives before being lead to the slaughterhouse. But then again, I'm not really willing to pay more to make that happen. To me it simply doesn't matter enough for me to pay more for the same end-product.
I also understand everyone will have their own opinion on this matter. Again, this is just my opinion. To me, it's not a matter of the quality of the animal's life. They all have the same fate: to be murdered. But I think back to the example of my youngest sister...growing up we raised a few various animals, and our first pig was lovingly named "Wilbur," of course being taken from Charlotte's Web. (For the record, all of the animals we raised would be considered as "free range" compared to the given examples though they were fenced in)
When slaughtering time came, my sister (then about 4 or 5) asked, "Wilbur's dead now?"
My parents replied, "Yes honey, Wilbur's dead now."
"Wilbur's meat now?"
"Yes, Wilbur's meat now."
"I like meat!" :D She responded cheerfully.
For those who do care about animal rights and their quality of life, much respect. To me, it's just a void issue (personally).
I think what low_res_man is getting at is that animals who become food in the wild, for other animals and/or people, suffer mental and physical anguish in their dying moments too. Plus, in life they have to provide food and shelter for themselves. Conversely, farming, free-range or otherwise, in a sense provides for the animals up to the point of death.
In theory.
The reality is that some (arguably the minority or the majority) farming is conducted without the animals well-being being taken into consideration, and that this mental and physical anguish can be a tortuously drawn out experience in certain cases. Killing animals for food is here to stay. But we can choose how the animal dies, and we can choose not to cause unnecessary suffering in any living creature. I'm uncomfortable with the thought of an animal being conscious at the moment of death; hanging a live lamb up by it's back legs, and slitting it's throat is horrible, regardless of how humanely the animal was treated beforehand.
But to be honest, it's not really something I give a lot of thought too. I, like a lot of people, am just too apathetic.
On the other hand, I don't eat a lot of red meat, but that which I do usually comes from free-range or organic herds. Same for chickens. And eggs, for that matter. It's not hard to do, or expensive, and the information is usually printed on the label.
I can't believe what a selfish attitude that is Monkey. As long as you can acknowledge that your reasons for choosing cheaper meat are entirely selfish, I guess that's fine by me...
Layabout, I agree - organic/free range actually tastes better. I generally find that the better the farming methods, the better quality the meat - for instance chickens that have been reared slowly outdoors, instead of the intensively farmed ones that never see the light of day, the meat is poor quality with visible wounds, been fed all kinds of disgusting things to fatten it up fast... and they also tend to use incredibly fast-growing types of chickens bred specifically for meat, if memory serves correctly... Their bone structures are unable to support how fast they grow from hatching, it's really quite disgusting.
Yeah there's probably never going to be a lack of need for intensive farming, but if more people make the right decision then there'll be more free-range then there is intensive, and that's a start right? In places like Brighton there's such a large awareness of this issue that most pubs and restaurants here serve free range meat or supertasty vegetarian alternatives, which is awesome and admirable :)
I would never make you call fish "sea kittens". I manage to avoid a lot of stuff Peta do/say because I'm from the UK, but man they really do make a nuisance of themselves sometimes... which isn't good for their cause as it just turns people off it :-/
Limpingfish - most people are apathetic or have never paid much thought to it, hence this thread. Sometimes when you tell people this stuff, and how easy it is to switch to free range, they start making conscious decisions to. It's not hard, it takes no extra effort and very little extra expense but I think it's a good thing to do. Even just buying it when you can makes all the difference :)
I admit fully and completely that from the perspective of an animal rights sympathizer, my stand is selfish. I also admit that from a consumer stand it's not. So, it would probably be best for us to never have children as the two conflicting standpoints might just create some type of antipoint that would negate the entire universe. ::)
My family is poor, so we buy what's cheapest. I don't care if that's a horrible slaughterhouse or happy fields and pastures with pigs and wolves getting along fine and dandy.
~Trent
I'm probably going to sound really, really insensitive here. No, seriously. You're going to think I'm an absolutely horrible person and never want to speak to me again.
Okay, so think of it like this.
There are many different ways in which these animals can be treated. Kept holed up in tiny cages, left to roam free.
But all of these paths eventually lead the animal to one common location: your plate.
Whichever way you slice it, no matter what the conditions were these animals have been kept in, they're eventually going to be killed and turned into food.
And at that point, does it really matter how they were treated beforehand?
First of all, you have to choose whether or not you even believe that animals can suffer this thing called 'mental anguish'. We know from scientific (and unscientific) tests that they feel pain and have an instinctual fight or flight response to it, but since animals are not higher thinking, sentient beings, I do not believe they suffer 'mental anguish'. I think the abundance of anthropomorphic shows by Disney and others have, over time, given some people a skewed perspective of the animal kingdom, making us feel guilty when we see <insert favorite tasty animal> slaughtered, and I refuse to feel guilty or selfish or any other nonsense because I like animal flesh. It tastes wonderful!
On the subject of living conditions, however, there is one very sound reason why I'm opposed to animals being kept in their own filth or forced in tight quarters: disease. China learned a lot about the stupidity of keeping multiple animals cramped together in their own excrement with Bird Flu, and there's a lesson in there for any farmer. I'm not really concerned with the animals being 'happy' because they are going to be food anyway, but I definitely think they should be kept as well as possible to limit things like Mad Cow, hoof and mouth, and such.
Frankly, I find it ridiculous that anyone would be concerned with the happiness of animals destined to become hamhocks, but okay...
Quote
And at that point, does it really matter how they were treated beforehand?
Well yes it does, actually ...
1. The manner in which one treats (or allows others to treat) those who are less powerful says a lot about one's character.
2. Just because an animal is destined to be killed for food does not justify the infliction of additional pain and suffering for it's entire life. Civilized and thoughtful human beings ought to be grateful and respectful of the creatures who give them sustenance.
Quote
I think the abundance of anthropomorphic shows by Disney and others have, over time, given some people a skewed perspective of the animal kingdom, making us feel guilty when we see <insert favorite tasty animal> slaughtered, and I refuse to feel guilty or selfish or any other nonsense because I like animal flesh. It tastes wonderful!
I would agree that there is a Bambi Syndrome out there where people attribute characteristics to animals which they do not have. This however does not justify the intentional infliction of pain and suffering on any living thing.
Kudos to Meowster for this post
I think it would be far more beneficial to try to appeal to people on a portion control level. We eat far too much meat (at least here in the states). Eating too much meat has negative health effects, and there's more of environmental impact in producing meat. Whereas fruits/vegetables/grains grow much faster than the years it can take to grow livestock.
I, generally, avoid meat for breakfast and lunch. With dinner I'm more prone to making vegetarian things at home, but eating meat at a restaurant. Mostly, I do this because I don't like cooking with raw meat at home, though, not because I'm health conscious.
-MillsJROSS
Progz, what you said about animals not being sentient: regardless of whether you have empathy for animals or not, I don't think you're in the position to tell what is subjectively going on in the mind of another creature.
Also, laws against animal cruelty were established way before the first disney movie was made.
personally i think people should put the needs of other human beings before those of animals that are just going to be eaten anyway, the whole matter is very low down on my list of stuff that's actually important.
there are plenty of homeless and poor people out there that the general public isn't doing anything to help, but they'll pay an extra couple of quid for so called free range or organic produce.
and i don't believe that just because something is organic of free range that it tastes better, in fact i'd go as far as saying that anyone who says so is talking bullshit. you're just allowing yourself to believe it tastes better because apparently the animal didn't suffer before it was slaughtered and it's corpse cooked for your enjoyment.
if you give that much of a shit about the welfare of animals why not become a damn vegetarian instead of a hypocrit trying to convert people over to this much more sensitive way of thinking?
what we really need is michael moore to make a documentary about it.
While I understand the advantages (both to myself and to the animal) of having free-range meat in terms of health and humanity, I have to say that I find free-range chicken very tough and chewy, and almost always much smaller than the farm version. I do, however prefer free-range, organic eggs to farm eggs, but am also in a position where I don't have to pay for them (I own 5 hens). Anyhoo...you don't have to worry on my account, whenever I have meat (every one or two days) it is free-range.
As callous as it is to say, seeing how we've set up our world, you'll be more successful talking about how it benefits US to have free range animal products rather than the animals. Even then, when that benefit comes at an increased cost (no matter how small), some people just won't bother. This will result in weak, unfit, overweight and unhealthy people, but they'll be weak, unfit, overweight and unhealthy people who think they're saving money.
The thing is, RickJ, that it's not -me- treating the animals that way. And the only proof I have that they're even being treated "humanely" by the people who claim to do so is their word for it. I never know how the animals I eat were treated before they were slaughtered, and regardless of how I might feel about it the fact of the matter is that I never will.
I'm on board with the free-range deal.
Having seen battery farmed chickens, I would never want to eat something produced in that way. They are disease ridden, they spend all day walking around in a pit of faeces and amonia from their urine. I remember seeing the hens being inspected, their feet were badly damaged and they had pock marks on their undersides. I don't want to eat that or anything from that.
I also dislike the idea of eating meat that has been grown artificially quickly with hormone injections. Again, I simply don't want to eat that. I don't think we can -really- claim humane reasons when we are, after all, rearing these animals for food, but I don't support overt cruelty or messed-up foods.
(GM vegetables, by the way, are fine, they're just specially bred.)
Having said that, I would defend the choice of people to eat intensively farmed products because not everyone can afford to make such luxurious, decadent, wasteful choices about food as I just have.
All that is true Flibble, and we are constantly reminded of bomarded with these facts every day. But what I choose to eat is my decision and I don't wan't the guilt-trip brigade trying to put me off my dinner. It's out of order. The thing is, the meat has never done me any harm and while I might feel a twang of sadness for the little hens all couped up like that, it frankly isn't enough to stop me from eating it.
I shouldn't have to apologise to the moralists for my eating habits. Leave me alone!
On a side note this whole discussion may become irrelevant in the future when meat is grown in vitro.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat
http://www.google.com/search?q=in-vitro+meats
Problem is, as always, the price ascociated with free range animal meat. I do support it, because I think it tastes better, it's 'safer' for my kids and I'm well off enough to do something like this to an extend. Do keep in mind that organic food (not what we're talking about here), is very much undergrown here in Greece, and very very pricey, compaired to London or the whole of the UK, so it's completely out of reach!
It is a dichotomy to ask someone to pay more and only that. It can be a problem, no matter the ascociations, since not everyone is so active towards fair animal treating, etc... :-\
Quote from: RickJ on Sat 10/01/2009 15:34:35
On a side note this whole discussion may become irrelevant in the future when meat is grown in vitro.
I dont think that will end the discussion. There will be people who argue that in vitro meat has a "soul" or that growing meat that way is playing god, or against nature or causes diseases and what not. Someone will always be offended.
Hey I'm on my iPhone so this reply will be short...
To say that 'if it ends up on the plate what does it matter whAt it's life is like prior to that' is, in a word, dumb. All people end up 6 feet under, but of course it matters what their quality of life is like prior to that!
'at least domestic animals have a roof over their heads' - so did the Jews in concentration camps. Okay, a severe example admittedly but I'm trying to point out that that is a null thing to say.
I rescued animals from intensive farming when I was younger and when you witness first hand how cruel it is, it is hard to have the same selfish 'I don't care where it came from so long as it's on my plate' attitude. When I rescued my turkeys they were initially frightened, covered in lice, couldn't walk because they were so weak... Within a few weeks their plummage was shiny, they were outgoing and friendly and you know what, they even pestered to be allowed sit on my lap :)
People SHOULD eat less meat. We all eat far too much. Look how disgustingly fat so many people are, yet continue to gorge themselves on the flesh of animals who have led miserable lives with the attitude that 'can't afford a few £s more....burp'
I'm really disappointed by the attitudes of so many people here. If you have a real reason to buy cheaply produced meat, whatever that may be, fine. But most of you just can't be bothered to pay a little extra. For shame.
Ahh, the inevitable comparison to the Nazis.
Quotebut of course it matters what their quality of life is like prior to that!
To whom is the issue here. To whom does it matter when a person dies and is buried? Their family? Their friends and colleagues? People who reflect (both internally and externally) about their memories with the deceased, good and bad?
Okay, now seriously and rationally apply that argument to animals. Do you honestly think animal siblings think about how well their now-dead sibling lived?
Oh, and please don't approach an argument from the roundabout direction. People aren't fat because they eat meat; they are fat because they eat too much garbage, like chocolate, crisps, batter fried candy bars, and just generally too much food for their metabolism altogether, so 'eat less meat because you're fat' does not hold any weight as an argument.
Why should people pay more money to ease
your conscience? If people find no wrong in eating animals they kill with a gun (or see killed with a gun, or butchered), what right is it of yours to try and make them feel guilt for it? The world heaps enough guilt on people for virtually everything we do. When is it ever enough?
Not being able to afford a few £s more for happier meat isn't an attitude. It's a fact of some people's financial situation. Especially in the currant economic climate. I'm not aiming this at you specifically Meowster, but it really cheeses me off when people start preaching from the moral highground about one subject without thinking about everything else around them... look around your home and all its contents...
Ask yourself... How many habitats have been destroyed, how many hungry people have been paid a pittance, how many fat cats are getting rich all in order to make the items in you take for granted every day? I bet even you haven't managed to avoid every morally questionable product in existence.
I've recently discovered that there's a word for the approach I instinctively chose a long time ago towards such moral dilemmas - utilitarianism.
My point being: if I stopped eating intensively farmed animal products today, nothing would change except the amount of money I personally can spend on other things. Sure, I'd have a less guilty conscience, but frankly, what is the actual benefit of that (except maybe being able to brag about what a moral person I am)?
As long as I don't act as some kind of example for other people and thus manage to actually change something, I do what's best: choose what's right for me and shut the hell up.
IMO, utilitarianism is just another word for realism; and I'm glad that there are so many idealists who sometimes actually can make a change, but as long as they don't die out, I'll stay in the real world, thanks.
I'm a vegetarian and I can honestly say that I don't care what other people eat. It's THEIR choice.
If a majority of people feel that the bio industry is doing something wrong, the majority of people should change their ways to reflect that, and hopefully the industry can be changed that way.
If, however, the majority of people don't really care enough about what the bio industry is doing (as seems to be the case right now), the majority of people don't have to change their ways and equally hopefully, nothing changes.
There's a very angry and irrational minority trying to change things to suit them.
I say screw them. I'm not saying anyone in this topic is like this, I'm primarily talking about meat nazis, of which I know a couple and they piss me the hell off.
What you stuff your face with is your choice. If it's good for you, hey, right on! If it's bad for you, don't complain if you made that choice yourself. If it's good for another, hey, that's awesome. But it doesn't mean you've got the right to tell others what they should or shouldn't do.
edit: I can't let it slide.
Quote from: Meowster on Sat 10/01/2009 16:56:09
'at least domestic animals have a roof over their heads' - so did the Jews in concentration camps.
Really? You're comparing animals being used for food with the genocide of millions of humans? Fucking
really? Way to invalidate your own point by going for shock value, Meowster, nicely done.
Buying free range is a nice idea; while I have no problem with eating animals, I don't want them to suffer beforehand. However, as others have pointed out, it's just too expensive for some people, and the "free range" label doesn't guarantee that the animals didn't suffer. Cages aren't the only things that can hurt an animal.
I buy cage-free eggs, but that's about it. And I'm not going to raise a ruckus if somebody doesn't want to pay $2.00 more for brown eggs and an eased conscience.
By the way... sea kittens? I knew PETA was nuts, but WTHCK.
Quote from: voh on Sat 10/01/2009 17:40:32
I'm a vegetarian and I can honestly say that I don't care what other people eat. It's THEIR choice.
If a majority of people feel that the bio industry is doing something wrong, the majority of people should change their ways to reflect that, and hopefully the industry can be changed that way.
If, however, the majority of people don't really care enough about what the bio industry is doing (as seems to be the case right now), the majority of people don't have to change their ways and equally hopefully, nothing changes.
There's a very angry and irrational minority trying to change things to suit them.
I say screw them. I'm not saying anyone in this topic is like this, I'm primarily talking about meat nazis, of which I know a couple and they piss me the hell off.
What you stuff your face with is your choice. If it's good for you, hey, right on! If it's bad for you, don't complain if you made that choice yourself. If it's good for another, hey, that's awesome. But it doesn't mean you've got the right to tell others what they should or shouldn't do.
edit: I can't let it slide.
Quote from: Meowster on Sat 10/01/2009 16:56:09
'at least domestic animals have a roof over their heads' - so did the Jews in concentration camps.
Really? You're comparing animals being used for food with the genocide of millions of humans? Fucking really? Way to invalidate your own point by going for shock value, Meowster, nicely done.
I knew someone would leap to take offence at this. The point I'm making is that people at the time of concentration camps, people 1) turned a blind eye to the suffering because it wasn't them suffering so they didn't care and 2) the assumption that just because someone or something has forcefully had a roof put over its head makes it somehow automatically better off. I'm not comparing animals being used for food to the genocide of millions of humans, I'm using the attitudes of that time to compare the attitudes now of the abuse of millions of animals. Whether you like it or not they're similar attitudes and it's a comparison worth pointing out.
The treatment of Jews and other minority groups during WWII was appalling, both in terms of how it happened and how people
allowed it to happen - it was massive, and of course people are going to use that to compare to things that occur today or have occured in the past. It's not a bad thing, and people certainly shouldn't become insta-offended when it happens.
I'm not saying that it's on the same level or anything, so stop panicking and jumping on the defensive.
I'm gonna stop posting in this thread now... I've strayed too far from the original point. it was originally supposed to encourage people who'd never put much thought into it before to choose their meat with animal welfare in mind. I'm still shocked at the overwhelming majority of amazingly selfish responses which is what caused me to argue, and I shouldn't have because let's face it - someone who says they don't care how the animal was treated before it ended up on their plate has already made a decision and isn't going to change it just because I say so. Although to those people I'd still ask you to read about where your meat is coming from - sometimes the harsh reality is far worse than what you imagine.
But back to the
original point of the thread, I would ask anyone who can reasonably afford it to a) eat less meat for the sake of the environment amongst other things and 2) when choosing your meat, choose free-range whenever you can. That's all. Ciao! Bye!
Voh:
Quote from: voh on Sat 10/01/2009 17:40:32
If, however, the majority of people don't really care enough about what the bio industry is doing (as seems to be the case right now), the majority of people don't have to change their ways and equally hopefully, nothing changes.
So, everything is moral as long as the majority condones it? Blacks being mistreated in the US south was fine and should have stayed that way? Gays being executed in Iran is something that "hopefully" never change?
All significant human rights movement have started as minority movements which annoyed the establishment, but was later adopted.
Putting up with annoying idealists seems like a small price to pay.
KhrisMUC:
Quote from: KhrisMUC on Sat 10/01/2009 17:24:37
My point being: if I stopped eating intensively farmed animal products today, nothing would change except the amount of money I personally can spend on other things. Sure, I'd have a less guilty conscience, but frankly, what is the actual benefit of that (except maybe being able to brag about what a moral person I am)?
I understand your reasoning, but it's not an election, where one vote more or less truly doesn't matter except in rare cases. Your local store stocks up as much meat as they think they can sell. If you stop buying regular meat, and ask for FR, then particularly in smaller stores, they'll sooner or later retune their supply. It's a small difference but it's a difference.
ProgZmax:
Quote from: ProgZmax on Sat 10/01/2009 17:10:05
Quotebut of course it matters what their quality of life is like prior to that!
To whom is the issue here. To whom does it matter when a person dies and is buried? Their family? Their friends and colleagues? People who reflect (both internally and externally) about their memories with the deceased, good and bad?
So the immorality of taking a life or mistreating someone is based on the anguish it causes to their near and dear of the deceased?
Wouldn't that make killing or mistreating a traveling bum without any social ties fine? Or does your argument rely on the concept of an anthropocentric, punishing god?
My reply was directed at Meowster's inference that it's important that an animal has quality of life before it is slaughtered because it's important that people have quality of life before they die.
QuoteTo say that 'if it ends up on the plate what does it matter whAt it's life is like prior to that' is, in a word, dumb. All people end up 6 feet under, but of course it matters what their quality of life is like prior to that!
My question still is, to whom does it matter? If your sole use as an organism is to be food to another, does it (and more importantly, should it) matter how comfortably you lived before you were eaten? It may be important to the individual, but who else will care when all is said and done? The argument is an interesting one, but I see it as wasted energy and money to worry about the fate of animals destined to be someone's dinner (beyond maintaining their physical health), since the act of killing them is in itself a form of survival that some see as barbaric.
QuoteWouldn't that make killing or mistreating a traveling bum without any social ties fine? Or does your argument rely on the concept of an anthropocentric, punishing god?
This is a fallacy because you are attempting a comparison between two dissimilar things, a bum and animals we use as a food source, and you do not need to believe in religion to place Man at the peak of Earth's evolutionary scale.
You can argue 'but why be more cruel than necessary?', but when it comes down to it you can also argue it's cruel to treat these animals exceptionally well just to slaughter them. You can also argue that it's not cruel to keep them healthy but to otherwise treat them as a food source and not attribute human feelings and thoughts to things that are not human -- which is the argument I support.
I'm also a vegetarian (lifelong) so whilst I am probably pretty biased on the topic I'm totally on board with a free-er range concept for other meat eaters (although of course personally I'm involved in neither but animal cruelty is a part of why I am a vegetarian) Yes they are only 'animals' but I think the extreme cases (such as chickens with so little space that their legs begin to dissolve in their own faeces/urine) are shocking (althoughI'm sure everyone has heard that story and its nothing new to you whichever side of the fence you are on) But this would stop if consumers said No. again I doubt I'm telling anybody anything they dont already know - your all smart people - and many people just don't care or have made some other decision.
Concider this. We only consider animals 'inferior' because of a lack of certainty that they don't feel/think as we do. Image some Alien race herding us like cattle and treating us the same way- farfetched but run with it for the moment - would you consider it okay for them to confine your family up into a confined space to suffer just because they are 'better' than us.
As you can tell I'm very opinionated and I don't actually expect this argument to convince people to suddenly stop eating factory farmed meat, if you are so inclined, but thats my take on it. I think we can't make such a bold decision as to let something suffer based on an assumption (with very little evidence, conclusive evidence at least) that is is less 'valuable' then us. How can you judge value? we have hardly been kind to the universe - squabbling, destroying habitats and lots of other soppy crap that environmentalists get so riled up about (that said I do agree with some of it). I accept that people will probably always eat meat, but I also believe survival imperitive - even the fact that it just tries its best to run away from danger - means you have to feel at least something.
Another point, wouldn't being confined to small quarters and bad conditions produce lower quality meat? Just think about how when humans get stressed/upset/angry for a moderate period of time our immune system becomes weaker and so we are more susceptible to disease, which has to tamper with the taste/quality of the meat and is just waiting for something to go wrong or spread an epidemic (disease has to be more rampant in factory farms than on free range farms)
Would you buy a pair of shoes if you knew that a kid in Africa's parents were murdered to put him into slave labour to create? i'm sure very little of this happens in modern times, but having conversed with a teacher of mine who spent a 5 month tour of duty in Afghanistan, I really wouldn't be surprised (this is on topic) Life (human) is worthless there and whether or not you kill someone is determined by whether or not they are worth the bullet. He visited a school where all the teachers had been slaughtered simply because the taliban weren't happy what they were teaching (and yes these hundred or so kids were utterly alone in the middle of nowhere, with only a short supply of food, many of whom were 10 year old or less, until his squadron came). I realize how lucky we are in our respective countries (Britain, USA, Europe or wherever you hail from) and I've never been convinced the world was full of rainbows and butterflies and people dancing in the streets (not since i was 5 at least) but this really shocked me.
I personally consider this kind of insanity akin to animal cruelty. Sure they are going to be eaten anyway, but that is (to me at least) like saying 'Oh you are going to die one day, so I might as well destroy both your legs and let you live in your own faeces, whip you daily, feed you crap and make you susceptible to disease until then. Oh and FYI I will also shoot you in the if you become to ill or useless to me.' Obviously with people who don't consider non-sentient life 'important' none of this has any impact (a viewpoint that -I- just don't get. but hey if we were all the same then the world wouldn't run at all... or perhaps it would...) anyway i digress
I'm probably going to piss a few people off with at least one thing I have said (after all people with geeky interests - surely most of us - tend to be very opinionated and no trouble speaking their mind when angered) but that is my personal take on factory farming and animal cruelty and it will take a Hell of a lot to change them!
Quote from: Meowster on Sat 10/01/2009 16:56:09
To say that 'if it ends up on the plate what does it matter whAt it's life is like prior to that' is, in a word, dumb. All people end up 6 feet under, but of course it matters what their quality of life is like prior to that!
Does it matter to the worms that will eat my decaying body that I lead a life with a good job and wife and kids?
No.~Trent
Quote from: ProgZmax on Sat 10/01/2009 19:41:47
This is a fallacy because you are attempting a comparison between two dissimilar things, a bum and animals we use as a food source, and you do not need to believe in religion to place Man at the peak of Earth's evolutionary scale.
So being higher on the evolutionary scale gives a being it the moral right to treat lower in whatever way they wish?
Is it right for a genius to mistreat/kill an extremely retarded homeless person without any social ties then? What about people who become "vegetables" after accidents, or are born that way?
This sounds awfully much like the way that both slavekeepers justified keeping slaves - the blacks were after all a lower race, almost animals - or, to go there, Hitler deeming arians to be a super race, which gave them their moral authority.
QuoteIf your sole use as an organism is to be food to another
So what's our use as humans?
It seems to me that your line of reasoning sooner or later comes down to the fact that humans are special creatures with a purpose given by god, but I could be mistaken.
Bah, what the heck, I'll argue :)
Quote from: Trent R on Sat 10/01/2009 20:45:43
Quote from: Meowster on Sat 10/01/2009 16:56:09
To say that 'if it ends up on the plate what does it matter whAt it's life is like prior to that' is, in a word, dumb. All people end up 6 feet under, but of course it matters what their quality of life is like prior to that!
Does it matter to the worms that will eat my decaying body that I lead a life with a good job and wife and kids?
No.
~Trent
You're missing the point entirely, please read and understand what people say before commenting.
The attitude that "if it ends up on your plate it doesn't matter what life it had before because it only ended up as food anyway"... that's what I'm pointing out as being a very wrong attitude to have. The assumption that it's alright to mistreat animals 'meant' for food because they all end up dead anyway. It is the equivelent of arguing that nobodys happiness or wellbeing matters as everything ends up dead ultimately - so why bother leading a happy life or making sure that others do?
Prog ZQuote"My reply was directed at Meowster's inference that it's important that an animal has quality of life before it is slaughtered because it's important that people have quality of life before they die."
Again, this is not what I said, please read and make sure you understand the point being made before you comment. I never said that it's important they have a quality of life
because it's important that people have a quality of life.
My point was (as I said above) their life is not pointless and void just because they ultimately end up dead on a plate. This is the equivelent of saying that human life is worthless and we might as well all lead unhappy and violent lives, simply because we all end up dead anyway so what's the point? Why shouldn't I beat up people weaker than me if they all end up dead in the end anyway?
QuoteYou can argue 'but why be more cruel than necessary?', but when it comes down to it you can also argue it's cruel to treat these animals exceptionally well just to slaughter them.
Do you think this is more cruel than treating them horrifically badly just to slaughter them?
The argument has become directed towards our perceived moral right to eat animals, which is a whole different kettle of offal than debating whether an animal bred for consumption has the right to a pain-free existence before fulfilling it's destiny as somebody's dinner. I feel that it does.
Empathy is one of the factors that separates us from the animal world. Should a person's empathic response be extended to animals? Clearly it's a debate in itself.
A large part of the situation is social conditioning. In many peoples eyes a cow is a means to end; that end being tasty steaks and such. But substitute a dog for a cow and said people may react in horror. The fact that dog is still consumed in parts of the world means little to a society that treats the domestic dog almost like a family member.
Here's an idea: Kick your dog in the balls to see if he feels pain. Then go to kick him in the balls again and see if he reacts in fear. The fact that an animal, any animal, can experience both pain and fear is enough to tell me that arguments over the validity of moral and humane reasoning towards animals is little more than gum-flapping of the most pedantic kind.
We, as a conscious reasoning mind, have the ability to choose whether we need or desire to inflict pain on another living creature, regardless of that creature's place in nature.
How we use that ability is up to the individual.
Quote
The argument has become directed towards our perceived moral right to eat animals, which is a whole different kettle of offal than debating whether an animal bred for consumption has the right to a pain-free existence before fulfilling it's destiny as somebody's dinner. I feel that it does.
I agree. Except for organisms that practice Photosynthesis or Chemosynthesis, all living things consume other living things to survive. This thread is not about the consumption or non-consumption of animals, it is about reducing the amount of suffering in the world. Being kind to all creatures great and small is a measure of our civility and enlightenment. As meowster says it's disappointing to learn that humanity is not as civil and enlightened as we would like to believe.
Nobody's saying that they wouldn't prefer a world in which animals were treated better. In an ideal world, of course the animals would not suffer. But some of us aren't idealists, we're realists (or utilitarianists as KhrisMUC suggested). What we're saying (or what I'm saying, at least) is that paying more for free-range doesn't make the blindest bit of difference...
Please don't make us feel guilty, that is unfair and intrusive and frankly none of your business. If you have an issue, then please take it up with the farmers themselves. Or wear a cloak and uncage some chickens in the middle of the night. Please let the rest of us eat what we want.
Nobody is stopping you from eating what you want.
Paying for free-range does make a difference.
1) it supports the farmers who produce free range products
2) it encourages your local supermarket to stock more free range produce and therefore supports free range farmers. In time this will mean more animals will have the opportunity of leading happier lives before slaughter.
Why do you think it wouldn't make a difference to buy free range?
As for feeling guilty, stop to think about what you're saying. Do you feel so defensive and angry and provoked when people make you aware of suffering in third world countries? Of poorly paid indian children working in squalid and dangerous conditions to make clothes that people like us wear? Would you rather not be aware of these things so that you can feel less guilty about not trying to help or avoiding products made by children working in sweatshops? If you would rather not be aware of these things and undertake in intelligent discussion about it then you can stop reading this thread, stop reading the news, etc. Eat what you want, but be aware of the suffering you're supporting by choosing certain products. And if that makes you feel guilty, perhaps the solution is that you should choose free range products instead.
Stupot: I know it wasn't particularly my reply that you were referring to but for those who do care (whether or not you do is your choice and i shan't intrude) if enough people band together and refuse to support it, farmers will realize that they can no longer get away it because there is no money to be had (it happens all the time with other things, such as recently there was a whole issue (in Britain) about how ridiculously priced refreshments in cinemas -popcorn, coke etc - are, and because it was announced so heavily all over the place and your average joe's decided to oppose the cinemas had no choice but to lower prices because the consumer said so.)
Anyway, like I said at the end of the day it is your business whether you support or oppose it, but I just wanted to say that change is possible if enough people want it.
While I can see the point of the people who are pushing for more people to eat free-range products, the fact of the matter is this.
Given the sheer population of earth, and the percentage of that population who regularly eat meat, it's pretty much certain that you will -never- convince enough of them to eat free-range to make a significant dent in the profit margin of those farmers who don't utilise such practices.
Like someone else said, of course I wish I could live in a world where every single animal that was bred for the sole purpose of eventually becoming food was treated humanely until the end of its days, but here's the thing. I don't. And neither do you.
You might say that this attitude is -why- we have this situation in the first place, but let's be perfectly honest here. There are just too many people supporting and advocating things the way they are right now for even a large group of people to make a difference.
I kind of stopped reading the thread about halfway down the first page. I'm a vegetarian so after reading the discussion on whether it's better or worse to buy free range meat, all I can really say is that whether you do or don't buy free-range, you still disgust me.
Thanks :)
I'm sorry "i stole your car" but your argument irks me on a fundamental level.
None of us are in any way slamming vegetarians for what they choose to eat (or not to eat). Why are you doing it to us?
Do you actually realise how many field mice and other assorted animals are painfully slaughtered all the time when farmers are collecting all of the things you eat?
And they're not even going to be used for something useful (like food). They just die, caught in the blades of some harvester or other.
I'm not advocating the cruelty that some farmers display towards their slaughter-bound animals, but at the end of the day they're going to end up wrapped in clingfilm in the supermarket whether I personally eat them or not. And when their lives are over it isn't going to matter to -them- what conditions they lived in. Why should it matter to me?
Well that's defeatism right there Trihan! I think if Meowster convinced just one person on this thread to buy free range, then it was worth it. However I skip read most of this debate.
As for me, I don't even wear leather, never mind eat meat.
"I stole your car" - Haha, that made me smile!
Quote from: Trihan on Sat 10/01/2009 23:13:51
I'm sorry "i stole your car" but your argument irks me on a fundamental level.
None of us are in any way slamming vegetarians for what they choose to eat (or not to eat). Why are you doing it to us?
Do you actually realise how many field mice and other assorted animals are painfully slaughtered all the time when farmers are collecting all of the things you eat?
And they're not even going to be used for something useful (like food). They just die, caught in the blades of some harvester or other.
I'm not advocating the cruelty that some farmers display towards their slaughter-bound animals, but at the end of the day they're going to end up wrapped in clingfilm in the supermarket whether I personally eat them or not. And when their lives are over it isn't going to matter to -them- what conditions they lived in. Why should it matter to me?
Actually I was making an ignorant post in response to the long list of ignorant posts that have already been posted so thanks for picking up on that.
Oh, sorry. Yeah, I totally didn't pick up on that. :P
ManicMatt: I disagree that it's defeatism. Let's say that Meowster has convinced one person reading this thread to eat free-range products instead. They go to the supermarket and buy free-range, the other product they would have bought remains on the shelf.
Somebody else comes along and buys it instead.
The thing is, when I buy meat from the store that animal is -already dead-. Whatever kind of life it lived, it's now irrelevant as it isn't living it any more.
Quote from: Trihan on Sat 10/01/2009 23:10:20
While I can see the point of the people who are pushing for more people to eat free-range products, the fact of the matter is this.
Given the sheer population of earth, and the percentage of that population who regularly eat meat, it's pretty much certain that you will -never- convince enough of them to eat free-range to make a significant dent in the profit margin of those farmers who don't utilise such practices.
Like someone else said, of course I wish I could live in a world where every single animal that was bred for the sole purpose of eventually becoming food was treated humanely until the end of its days, but here's the thing. I don't. And neither do you.
You might say that this attitude is -why- we have this situation in the first place, but let's be perfectly honest here. There are just too many people supporting and advocating things the way they are right now for even a large group of people to make a difference.
You are thinking about this on a much larger scale than you should be. You should be thinking about the way YOU feel about the subject and not about what the rest of the world thinks. It's true that just because me and other vegetarians have said FUCK YOU MASS PRODUCTION *shakes fist* they're not going to stop slaughtering animals to pack the shelves of your nearest supermarket, but I can at least feel good about myself for holding on to what I believe in. It's such a cop-out attitude to say things like "heh they're going to kill the animals anyway" or "oh well it'll never be global." and it MIGHT never be global but the amount of vegetarians and people demanding free range products is on a massive rise so maybe not in our life time but in the future maybe.
I don't know if you've ever been in a slaughterhouse or really thought about the amount of animals that have to be killed DAILY to stock the shelves of just ONE supermarket, let alone supermarkets all over the world but it's such a stupid amount of animals to be killed just to feed the insensitive people who say "well i like meat" because people don't HAVE to eat meat, there's alternatives out there, so why does this happen? This isn't even touching on the subjects of battery farming and other living conditions for animals, the way they are raised and slaughtered or even the working conditions of people who themselves (human beings) work in these slaughter houses or the fact that most people are desensitized about the food they eat because it's so neatly processed and packaged and delivered to them at their convenience. The number of times I've seen people blanch at the thought of having to kill and eat their own food is phenomenal so when you're put in that position maybe you'd have a different outlook.
So yeah a large amount of mice and field animals might get killed during the process of growing and collecting vegetables for me to eat but I bet it's nowhere near the amount that are killed to feed the population of earth that just don't give a shit. At least I believe in something and am trying to take the best steps I can to hold up to that.
EDIT: I'll also just follow this up, that I really don't care if you personally eat meat. I don't want to lay on a guilt trip or even try and convince anybody else to become vegetarian because I do what I feel is right and I think you will do the same thing, but as opinionated as it may be my belief is that what you are doing is unnecessary and some of the opinions you've expressed are pretty ignorant. The same way you might think some of my opinions are pretty ignorant.
@Meowster: I'm very aware of all the things you mentioned. It doesn't make me angry to be made aware of these things, but it does make me angry when I'm called "selfish" because of my eating habits. And yes, part of me does care about all these horrible realities. But if a am feeling charitable, I'd rather put my hard earned cash towards something like starving children, or Cancer reasearch, or even asthma. Everyone is individual, and I just happen to rate the welfare of chickens as slightly less important than these things... I haven't got enough money to be conscience-free in every aspect of my life.
All I'm saying is that you're aiming your guilt trips at the wrong people.
Yes, if enough people buy free-range eggs then this certainly will encourage supemarkets to stock more of them... because they know they have to follow the trends to make the most money. Like when the whole 'organic' fad happened a couple of years ago, all of a sudden EVERYTHING was organic, and the supermarkets were laughing all the way to the bank.
What you should realise (and it's been mentioned by someone else earlier) is that just coz something on the shelf says 'free-range' it doesn't mean the animal didn't suffer... the term 'free-range' is a technicality rather than a symbol of happy hens.
Not really Trihan, if more and more people bought the free range meat, and less bought the normal stuff, then the shops would want more stock of the free range, and less of the standard meat. It's called Supply and Demand.
Do you really see that happening, though?
I don't think any of your opinions are ignorant, i stole your car. They are your opinions and you are just as entitled to them as I am to mine.
As insensitive as it might sound, I just can't bring myself to be enraged over this issue because I just eat the meat. In most cases I have no idea where it came from, and I probably couldn't tell the difference between free-range or battery.
And just to give a bit of insight on my standpoint, I quite literally am unable to eat most vegetables. They make me dry heave and I feel like I'm about to be sick. It's a sad state of affairs, and I wish things were different, but meat is more or less the only thing I can eat without being on the verge of puking. It's not really a choice for me.
Is the expense really an issue? Frankly, I wouldn't buy cheap meat for a whole other list of reasons. Steroids, feed quality, etc. How expensive is going free-range?
The ineffectiveness of the whole 1 man = 1 vote approach doesn't really matter to me. It's making that conscious decision that should matter, regardless of it effecting the situation on a larger scale. It's nice to think you might have helped a chicken out of a tight spot. And maybe you did.
Like I said earlier, I'm no militant activist. I rarely stop to think about the animal on my plate in any meaningful way, and I'm simply too comfortable to bother doing more than looking for "free-range" on the label. I can live with the hypocrisy.
Not buying free-range because doing so will deprive you of one of life's other luxuries is just being human. I don't actively give money to charities either (unless it's some product that I buy that the proceeds from happen to be going to charity. But that's different). It doesn't keep me awake at night.
It's just a case of admitting you can't be bothered. I know I largely can't.
I buy free range/organic as far as possible, eggs are easy and meat is too.
It's just a question of it tasting better for me. The difference between free range eggs and factory eggs is about 40p which is tolerable, and meat isn't that much different.
On a student budget it does make a difference, when your total shopping is normally 20 pounds. Free range/organic can put that up to 30. I suppose if i had a salary, and was buying more food and had the money for better stuff, the difference between 50 and 60 doesn't seem that much. I suppose it's a question of perspective.
One day I want my own chickens.
Quote from: Stupot on Sat 10/01/2009 23:26:33
@Meowster: I'm very aware of all the things you mentioned. It doesn't make me angry to be made aware of these things, but it does make me angry when I'm called "selfish" because of my eating habits. And yes, part of me does care about all these horrible realities. But if a am feeling charitable, I'd rather put my hard earned cash towards something like starving children, or Cancer reasearch, or even asthma. Everyone is individual, and I just happen to rate the welfare of chickens as slightly less important than these things... I haven't got enough money to be conscience-free in every aspect of my life.
All I'm saying is that you're aiming your guilt trips at the wrong people.
Yes, if enough people buy free-range eggs then this certainly will encourage supemarkets to stock more of them... because they know they have to follow the trends to make the most money. Like when the whole 'organic' fad happened a couple of years ago, all of a sudden EVERYTHING was organic, and the supermarkets were laughing all the way to the bank.
What you should realise (and it's been mentioned by someone else earlier) is that just coz something on the shelf says 'free-range' it doesn't mean the animal didn't suffer... the term 'free-range' is a technicality rather than a symbol of happy hens.
1. The "selfish" remark was aimed at people who openly admitted they can't be bothered to buy free range even if they can afford it, which may or may not have been what you originally said - I'm not going to go back and look at your post. That is the definition of selfish. If a person can't afford it or doesn't have access to it somehow, that's a reasonable excuse I suppose but saying you can't be bothered, you don't care what happened to the animal before your plate etc... this is an undeniably selfish attitude. So I can't remember if that's what you said, if not then the selfish remark wasn't aimed at you.
2. I wish people would stop comparing animal welfares to diet fads. It's not a 'fad'. It may be something that in recent times has gained more exposure and concern as certain intensive farming techniques have come to public attention, but that's only a good thing. That doesn't make it a fad. Concern about the wellbeing of living creatures that can feel pain, fear etc is not a 'fad'.
3. I realise that just because it says free-range doesn't mean it's from animals that have received the kind of treatment I personally would give them. That's not even vaguely an excuse for not buying free range meat though is it? Maybe where you're from it's different, but here in the UK most packaging on meat or eggs will give a fair amount of information on the way in which the animals are kept (whether they are outdoor/indoor reared, RSPCA or Freedom Food approved etc). This is far preferable, I'm sure you'll agree, to buying Tesco Value Chicken Breasts which you know for sure have led terrible lives before their death. You can also ask for information about various local farms from your local butchers (again I'm not sure how easy this is in the US or elsewhere).
Zooty - Oh man I want my own chickens again one day. Having animals when I was growing up was the best thing. Ducks and chickens ftw!
My girlfriend wants ducks, but I think they'd fly away cause I wouldn't want to clip them. Plus duck is tasty.
I pretty much just go to Tesco and pick up a packet of meat. It doesn't say on the packet how the animal was treated prior to being slaughtered and processed. The packet was still going to be there, and someone was still going to buy it if I didn't. (That's when I actually buy it, I don't often buy my own food anyway, my housemate does most of the shopping)
My boss has hundreds of chooks. And some guinea fowl. And some peacocks. My grandparents who are just down the hill have chooks, and the guy down the road has chooks and ducks and guinea fowl. We never buy eggs :D.
They are all free range. So free range that my boss couldn't find one of his pea hens for two weeks ;D
We had chooks until an evil cat found a hole in the wire and killed them all :'(
Quote from: Trihan on Sun 11/01/2009 01:14:57
The packet was still going to be there, and someone was still going to buy it if I didn't.
Just because it's already on the shelf doesn't mean you can't make a difference. I once knew someone who was vegetarian EXCEPT for when they ate at restaurants... Her logic was, "The animal is already dead, they've already bought it so what difference does it make?" But of course that's exactly the same logic as is behind your "the packet was still there and someone was going to buy it if I didn't"
As has been said numerous times, if more people bought free-range, the supermarket would stock more free-range and less intensively farmed meat, so the packet you randomly pick up might be free-range. It would also increase the number of free range animals compared to non free range.
So don't have a defeatist attitude :) every little helps
I'm surprised it doesn't say on the packets though... everywhere I've shopped it has said. If it doesn't say anything that suggests to me that it is not free range because otherwise they'd very proudly display it on the packaging. I wish some kind of legislation would come into place that meant everyone had to give some description of where the meat is from and how it's farmed... even just because I find it quite horrible not knowing. As other people have said on this thread, and another reason I would never eat intensively farmed meat... it can be quite disgusting, disease ridden etc. I've seen conditions of turkeys farrmed this way first hand... it stinks (literally) and they were covered in lice and all sorts of euguhh, it makes my skin crawl just thinking about it. It would be great if more information HAD to be displayed about the meat on the packaging... I think it's quite important. Remember BSE? Didn't that start with cows being fed their own brethren as cheap food?
Does anyone know if they currently have to display whether it's British meat or not, etc?
Ben + Zooty.... yay! I had an evil guinea fowl that hid in a cherry tree, waited for me to walk past, and then flew into my face EVERY SINGLE DAY.
As far as I'm aware, they only have to tell you were the meat is from. Most just name the primary source: British, Irish, EU, etc.
Some add a little blurb extolling the virtues (free-range/organic/etc) of whatever farms the animals came from or where they were processed, along with the promise that the animals used can be traced back to their source.
Quote from: Meowster on Sun 11/01/2009 02:07:13So don't have a defeatist attitude :) every little helps
Now I know the purpose of this thread, Meowster. You're taking money from Tesco's (http://www.freewebs.com/claytoncc/FWThumbnails/Tesco-every-little-helps-lo.jpg) to plug their free-range produce. ;D
Sainsburys used to put a picture of a man on the front, saying he was the farmer, presumably to prove it was real food.
I'm now married to that farmer.
Quote from: Meowster on Sun 11/01/2009 02:07:13
Ben + Zooty.... yay! I had an evil guinea fowl that hid in a cherry tree, waited for me to walk past, and then flew into my face EVERY SINGLE DAY.
This is obviously the most coolest thing ever :D
The fact that it was in a cherry tree makes it seem even more ninja!
The funny thing is that humans are the only animals having this kind of discussion. Since the frikking day of creation one living thing depends on consuming other living things. But it took several thousands years of evolution to create an organism that feels bad about doing so.
A pig is able to eat a man, whole. It is even quite capable of killing a man in order to do so. If I were alone in the woods a hungry pig would make short meat out of me. It's an animal-eats-animal world, and I see it as such. No animal, not even a dolphin (who're friendly and all that, you know), would think twice about eating what it can get.
Yeah, we have the luxury of having other peeps kill our meat for us, but to be honest, that's just because we were quicker than all the other animals. I really see no need to justify what I eat, or to refuse a certain type of meat (or meat altogether) just to make a statement.
Still, I value your point here, Meowster, and even can follow the overall logic of the thread (to a point).
To achieve true equality between nature and man, we must go back to our roots; Battling savage porkers in the woods with naught but our wits and impressively hairy chests (except for the women, I hope), wrestling the beast with our bare hands and our uncanny wits in order to achieve lunch.
Once we have achieved this state of balance, there will be no more need for this kind of discussion.
Unless a more advanced race comes along/evolves/whatever those freaky advanced races (like us) do to get advanced, and then make human battery farms (kinda like the Matrix really), because then they'll have to have the discussion. And if humans escape the human farm then they'll get taken to the pound and put down or ground down into dogmeat!
Or, if a new ice age wipes humans out completely, (or the big meteor thing or armageddon whatever it is) and then the only thing that is left of our awesome flying cars and robot maids (this obviously won't happen until like 2174) will be strange fossils, which the next advanced race to come along (giant cockroaches? aliens?) will unearth and put into museums, giving us awesome names meaning things like "Terrible mammal".
Sorry for going way more offtopic that was necessary or appropriate :-[
EDIT: Oh, and I really do detest making serious points in arguments when I am quite sure that nobody's opinion is going to be swayed by my point, but anyone who comes in here citing the money reason makes me shake my head. Posting on here means you have access to a computer and internet, which costs money. Most of you have televisions, telephones and that sort of thing. Saying that you really *do* care about animal's feelings, but can't/won't afford to do so is basically saying that you care more about having luxury items than you do about the wellbeing of another living creature, which is a very sad thing to say in my opinion.
I also get the feeling that the underlying tone of some of the posts here is a question of whether humans are a more important animal than all the other animals or not. Which for me is a difficult thing to answer.
I truly believe animals have feelings, even those that aren't humans/destined for burgers. We have cows and sheep - I am quite certain that they have feelings beyond the basic instinct for survival. I work in a shearing shed with sheep quite often and one can see that they have feelings as well. They aren't walking meat any more than we are walking meat, in my experiences. Their amibitions may not reach the same level as ours, but they aren't just mobile steaks.
Quote from: ProgZMaxOh, and please don't approach an argument from the roundabout direction. People aren't fat because they eat meat; they are fat because they eat too much garbage, like chocolate, crisps, batter fried candy bars, and just generally too much food for their metabolism altogether, so 'eat less meat because you're fat' does not hold any weight as an argument.
I think the argument isn't about being fat, but being healthy. Eating copious amounts of meat is not good for your health. As with anything, moderation is key. Meat should be used more as a side item then the main course. We can supplement meat with other cheaper items, like having more grains and beans. That doesn't mean we get rid of meat, though. Just try to eat less.
Now, if we make an attempt to eat less meat, than there is less of a demand on the market. The reason we have a lot of this cruelty is because of massive demand for meat and meat by-products. This, to me, is more important than the choice between free-range and "imprisoned" meat. I think it would have a bigger impact. It's also easier on the money belt, so you're not asking people to pay more.
The attitude, though, that the "regular meat is already packaged, and someone is going to buy it, so I might as well buy it." It's a false argument. For one, it says that your purchase is meaningless. It isn't. Demand is generated from every single consumer. There is no consumer left out, and if there was, it certainly wouldn't be you. It's logic also limited to only the past and present, when we should be more concerned with the future. Grocery stores notice wasted product, and they notice it fast. If they are left with 10 packages they need to throw out, they'll order that much less (not accounting for holidays) the next week.
I'm of the belief that humans ARE superior to animals. However, saying that it's a dog eat dog world, and that it's part of the circle of life, doesn't fly with me. Yes, a worm doesn't care about your life, but frankly he didn't go to college. Neither did that pig. But that pig is certainly as smart as your dog and cat, if not smarter. We pick and choose what animals deserve to be treated with dignity. Horses are treated better than cows. Cockatoo's are treated better than chicken. Seems rather silly to me that we should be so callous towards the animals that taste the best. So, I'll look for free-range meat from now on, because I can afford to, and I don't buy meat often, anyway. (Or Kosher meat, because Kosher rules generally provide the animal died quickly with minimal pain).
-MillsJROSS
Quote from: MillsJROSS on Sun 11/01/2009 06:22:36(Or Kosher meat, because Kosher rules generally provide the animal died quickly with minimal pain).
-MillsJROSS
Sorry for going a bit out of topic but:
Quote from: WikiThese strict guidelines require that the animal is killed by a single cut across the throat to a precise depth, severing both carotid arteries, both jugular veins, both vagus nerves, the trachea and the esophagus, no higher than the epiglottis and no lower than where cilia begin inside the trachea, causing the animal to bleed to death.
If I were an animal I'd rather choose another kind of death.
I personally am with the "assholes" on this one, in that I believe the ends justifies the means. Or, in this case, the ends, being the same for either, makes the means irrelevant.
The truly sad thing is, for those who buy free range products and think it makes a difference. It doesn't. For every one person who eats free range products, or goes out of their way to eat them, there is easily 50 people who don't. The problem lies in the fact that as long there is demand, there will be always supply. Regardless of consequence or reason.
I leave you with a quote from 'Rosecrantz and Guildenstern are Dead':
Quote"For all the compasses in the world there is only one direction, and time its only measure"
Quote from: bicilotti on Sun 11/01/2009 07:03:06
Quote from: MillsJROSS on Sun 11/01/2009 06:22:36(Or Kosher meat, because Kosher rules generally provide the animal died quickly with minimal pain).
-MillsJROSS
Sorry for going a bit out of topic but:
Quote from: WikiThese strict guidelines require that the animal is killed by a single cut across the throat to a precise depth, severing both carotid arteries, both jugular veins, both vagus nerves, the trachea and the esophagus, no higher than the epiglottis and no lower than where cilia begin inside the trachea, causing the animal to bleed to death.
If I were an animal I'd rather choose another kind of death.
I've been to an abattoir before and watched animals slaughtered in the throat cutting manner before (prior to which the animal was stunned on the head somehow). I'm not sure whether it was just muscle spasms or 'nerves' (these seem to be the two things it was attributed to, rather than actual pain) but I noticed the sheep killed in this manner quite often thrashing about. Note that this was with a stun to the head as
well as the throat cutting business, which was really a rather severe cut.
It really did leave me feeling quite unwell.
Quote from: i stole your car on Sat 10/01/2009 23:26:27The number of times I've seen people blanch at the thought of having to kill and eat their own food
We raised pigs, cows, chickens, etc., though all of our chickens escaped into the woods behind our house and became truly free range chickens (most of which were promptly eaten by free range raccoons, free range bobcats, and of course the odd free range stray dog or free range vulture). I have personally helped feed, tend to, raise, slaughter and eat these animals. I know there's a lot of people who come from different backgrounds and so your statement wasn't strictly directed at me...but I do understand the work that goes into raising these animals. The work that goes into slaughtering them. So on and so forth.
It's not to say that I think animals are incapable of feeling any type of emotion. Our cow, "Blue" would get very sad if we didn't feed him table scraps (of the vegetarian variety :P) out of the window at dinner. Not to mention the dogs and cats we went through. I fully understand that animals, just like myself, are capable of experiencing "feelings." And it probably has a lot to do with my up-bringing, in that I was raised that pigs, cows, chickens, etc., etc. are food.
Honestly, I don't buy meat often. It's expensive. When I purchase food it seems primarily to consist of things like ramen noodles. := Not that I don't know how to cook (somewhat), simply that food altogether is expensive. So I may have been a bit brash in what I said before. But as I said, (understanding though I may be) I'm just quite simply not
sympathetic toward the "animal rights" movement. Not to say I'm against it, but I don't strictly feel that animals deserve the same rights as humans. There is a line of morality and ethics that applies even to the animal kingdom (in my personal book of values of course), but humans are a completely separate chapter in that (MY) book.
Furthermore, to be perfectly honest, when I do buy meat, I've never seen this fabled "Free Range" label. If I did I might roll it over in my mind...maybe. But I
wouldn't go out of my way to buy it.
And with regard to all this back-and-forth about it does/doesn't make a difference: the fact of the matter, as has been stated is quite simply that the law of supply and demand drives 100% of what the shelves in your supermarket stores are stocked with. If they stock FR products and a significant percentage of the product is lost (not sold), they absolutely will stock less of it, until ultimately they stock none at all. But the inverse is also true. If they stock it, and it sells reasonably well, they will stock (within reason) more of the product.
The "it was already dead" is a mute point as well. Again driven entirely by S&D. It's true that if you don't buy it that someone else might. But it doesn't mean they will. The markets will only continue to stock products that sell.
If it helps, take for example when a company is testing a new product. For added hype, they throw in the super exciting "LIMITED EDITION!!1" exclamation on every promotional item regarding the product, including the product label. If the product is crap then people realize it, stop buying it, and you can kiss it goodbye. If it sells, it's officially adopted into the mainstream product line. For example,
Mountain Dew: Code Red (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Dew#Varieties) started off as a LE product. It sold well enough it's now going on 8 years as an active member of the MD family. In short S&D is everything when it comes to things like this.
Also driven by the law of S&D is the pricing. As FR products become more mainstream (hypothetical), the price will normalize and the issue will stop being a one of money...until then: Mmm, sloth burgers (http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/1369/slothburgermmmmmmmmhm9.png)â,,¢
Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Sun 11/01/2009 07:42:08
Quote from: i stole your car on Sat 10/01/2009 23:26:27The number of times I've seen people blanch at the thought of having to kill and eat their own food
We raised pigs, cows, chickens, etc., though all of our chickens escaped into the woods behind our house and became truly free range chickens (most of which were promptly eaten by free range raccoons, free range bobcats, and of course the odd free range stray dog or free range vulture). I have personally helped feed, tend to, raise, slaughter and eat these animals. I know there's a lot of people who come from different backgrounds and so your statement wasn't strictly directed at me...but I do understand the work that goes into raising these animals. The work that goes into slaughtering them. So on and so forth.
I've always said if I raised the animals and killed them myself then I would eat that meat because it's not so much the thought of eating another animal that I have the problem with but just I disagree with a lot of the mass production and the way people are desensitized to the food they are eating, it's processed and packaged for them and they never even have to care about the animal that they're eating, let alone kill it themselves.
However this was an opinion I held maybe 1 - 2 years ago. Even if this was the case I'm not sure I would go back to eating meat now, so I would have no problem with you or anyone else eating meat if you raised and killed or hunted the animal yourself. I will stick to the alternatives though.
Quote from: Ben304 on Sun 11/01/2009 07:37:22
It really did leave me feeling quite unwell.
This is a whole other topic. I eat meat, and I cannot deny that, and I've also seen the animals being slaughtered. For all their 'utilitarianism', it would be interesting to see how many people would still be eating meat if they saw how the animal had been killed. Human emotion has evolved far too much for most not to care :). So yeah, I make sure that the meat I obtain has been killed humanely too.
Just to elaborate on that point, I've seen animals killed before this point, and actually helped deal with the meat + guts and all that and not had a problem with it, really.
It's just when I see an animal thrashing around in what appears to be pain - seems a little different then, really.
Quote from: BenOh, and I really do detest making serious points in arguments when I am quite sure that nobody's opinion is going to be swayed by my point, but anyone who comes in here citing the money reason makes me shake my head. Posting on here means you have access to a computer and internet, which costs money. Most of you have televisions, telephones and that sort of thing. Saying that you really *do* care about animal's feelings, but can't/won't afford to do so is basically saying that you care more about having luxury items than you do about the wellbeing of another living creature, which is a very sad thing to say in my opinion.
[EDIT]
Man, did I really write that much crap? How embarrassing :-\
Let me summarise four paragraphs of absolute toilet in 3 concise sentences:
Some people, myself included
do live on a budget. I personally don't have a hell of a lot in the way of luxuries and those I do have are nearly always hand-me-downs or gifts. I have to try to budget in everything I do and this includes my choice in meat.
I understand that not everybody has the same financial situation. I wasn't really looking for an explanation here - no matter what you do, there will be an explanation which you are confident in for your actions. I can understand that you are comfortable with the explanation, but I'm sure you can see why other people are less accepting of your explanation.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that you have a choice, no matter what. Some people may have more choices than others, but you still have a choice in the matter. If the wellbeing of animals was the most important thing in the world to you, then I am sure you'd make the sacrifices necessary. It's clearly not, and I don't expect it to be - but money or no, you have a choice.
Also, what you consider luxury and what others consider luxury are two different things. I consider going to university a luxury :). I am sure there are many people across the globe that consider coffee and meat a luxury. When we break it down to basics, a human being's needs are not that great. Everything other than the bare, bare essentials can be considered a luxury :).
Personally, yeah, I've got plenty of money. But that is a choice I have made. I haven't travelled (except for work reasons), didn't go to uni (although mainly because I don't know what I want to be when I grow up) and make sure that I have frugal spending patterns, and am committed to working. I don't expect everyone else to have the exact same habit - just don't tell me you have no choice in an issue :).
You don't have to apologize. But money is certainly not the case here. The case is that you like meat, you like a certain amount of meat, and you're not willing to change that. There are foods that you can buy more of to supplement eating less meat that ARE cheaper. The truth is, it's just not something you care about. Which is perfectly an acceptable attitude, just don't complain that is has to do with your income.
As to Kosher killings. Slitting the throat is one of the most painless ways to go, your almost instantly become unconscious and you bleed out very fast. Even if you witnessed twitching, it doesn't bespeak of pain to the animal.
-MillsJROSS
Quote from: MillsJROSS on Sun 11/01/2009 13:57:53
As to Kosher killings. Slitting the throat is one of the most painless ways to go, your almost instantly become unconscious and you bleed out very fast. Even if you witnessed twitching, it doesn't bespeak of pain to the animal.
...wait, are we sure of this?
It's not like they can do experiments on a person, then bring him back and he can go "On pain rating, I give that 2/7" or whatever.
Sure, we might measure brain waves or whatever, but how do we know that is accurate ??? Not so long ago we thought the earth was flat ;)
Let's look at this from another angle: the farmers themselves.
Okay, so everybody's up in arms about the whole intensive farming thing. We don't like how the animals are treated, we think it's inhumane, we think it's cruel.
Thing is, apparently the farmers don't.
Why do I say this? Because if the farmers felt bad about it, they wouldn't be doing it in the first place.
If more people buy free-range, do you really think the farmers are going to have a change of heart and stop intensive farming altogether? As long as there's demand for it they'll continue to supply, in exactly the same way they've been supplying. And what's to stop them from -saying- they're free-range just so that they won't lose business? (I don't know much about the farming industry, maybe this would be harder than I think)
So okay, you've convinced more people to eat free-range, and given a few animals a better quality of life before they're slaughtered and processed for food.
I'm not a biologist or anything, but if no blood is going to the brain, they can't be feeling any pain, right?
However, as Ben said, it is probably a more gruesome looking way of killing animals. Still, if people cared more about the executionee than the people watching, we'd still be using the guillotine rather than the electric chair/gas chamber (I don't know about the lethal injection).
I've been told that your head can survive after being detached from your body for something like 3 minutes... :D
Quote from: Stupot on Sun 11/01/2009 13:29:26
Quote from: BenOh, and I really do detest making serious points in arguments when I am quite sure that nobody's opinion is going to be swayed by my point, but anyone who comes in here citing the money reason makes me shake my head. Posting on here means you have access to a computer and internet, which costs money. Most of you have televisions, telephones and that sort of thing. Saying that you really *do* care about animal's feelings, but can't/won't afford to do so is basically saying that you care more about having luxury items than you do about the wellbeing of another living creature, which is a very sad thing to say in my opinion.
[EDIT]
Man, did I really write that much crap? How embarrassing :-\
Let me summarise four paragraphs of absolute toilet in 3 concise sentences:
Some people, myself included do live on a budget. I personally don't have a hell of a lot in the way of luxuries and those I do have are nearly always hand-me-downs or gifts. I have to try to budget in everything I do and this includes my choice in meat.
I've been unemployed for four months since being made redundant, I have very little money indeed. In fact I have none, not enough to pay my rent myself this month. I wasn't even earning much when I was employed, and I live in one of the priciest locations in England.
I still haven't bought a single piece of non free-range meat. Sure, I've bought
less meat because I can't afford it as much, but I've also bought less luxuries such as wine, or nice toilet tissue instead of cheap stuff. I'm living on a budget, both me and my partner were made redundant at the same time so we have no income at all except our savings. Still we've made sure that we either choose free range, or we don't choose meat at all. And my partner
loves meat.
And when I was growing up I lived on hand-me-downs too mate.
Trihan QuoteIf more people buy free-range, do you really think the farmers are going to have a change of heart and stop intensive farming altogether? As long as there's demand for it they'll continue to supply, in exactly the same way they've been supplying. And what's to stop them from -saying- they're free-range just so that they won't lose business? (I don't know much about the farming industry, maybe this would be harder than I think)
So okay, you've convinced more people to eat free-range, and given a few animals a better quality of life before they're slaughtered and processed for food.
It's not about having a 'change of heart'. Of course they won't, but if supply and demand is making the demand for free-range higher, this will support the free-range farmers or encourage others to go free-range. Then as you say - more animals will have a better quality of life before they're slaughtered. Don't you think this is worthwhile?
As for what the farmers think... bah! Some kind of intensive chicken farming was outlawed in Britain recently, or is planning to be outphased. Not sure of the details but it was on the news a while back, and I remember some chicken farmer being interviewed. The news showed the chickens in appalling conditions, really really disgusting... you wouldn't eat one if you saw one, honestly, for fear of catching some kind of disease. And the farmer was interviewed... he made up some absolute bullcrap about how the chickens didn't mind it. I can't remember his exact wording but I was watching the TV with a friend and we were both astounded at how brilliantly he was lying to himself. I mean even the hardest hearted person couldn't have been angered or upset at seeing those chickens.
In other news - sorry I got so nettled in the first half of the thread, I really wasn't expecting everyone to have what I consider to be such a disappointing viewpoint. I'm glad we're all discussing intelligently now, it makes for an awesome thread... even if I now hate half of you for your views ;)
DISCLAIMER: The last bit was a joke! I don't hate anyone! It was a joke because there's been so much heated debate! Yay! It was irony? Get it? I am actually really enjoying having an intelligent debate where people aren't flaming each other! I guess I shouldn't have expected the kind of people who buy intensively farmed meat to get irony though. Whoa it was an ironic joke again, get it? :D!
I'm not being serious.
Quoteeven if I now hate half of you for your views
I'm afraid that you're working against your own cause.
Authors of such tirades always come off as a very self-righteous, judgemental person, quick to preach and quick to force your values on people. You think you're better than people who eat regular meat.
It's quite irritating, so people might start buying "intensive farmed", or whatever, food, just in spite.
I'm quite a sensitive fellow, yet your sermons made me crave a hamburger!
Thank you Blazej.
EDIT: already mentioned right above... Can't say I enjoy judgemental people too much... :-X
I want to hear more about these pigs that can eat a man whole.
They sound quite formidable and worthy of some sort of organized Man vs Pig death-match.
Have you not seen/read Hannibal? :D
Admittedly, those were specially bred pigs. And obviously, Hannibal won.
Quote from: Goldmund on Sun 11/01/2009 18:09:05
Quoteeven if I now hate half of you for your views
I'm afraid that you're working against your own cause.
Authors of such tirades always come off as a very self-righteous, judgemental person, quick to preach and quick to force your values on people. You think you're better than people who eat regular meat.
It's quite irritating, so people might start buying "intensive farmed", or whatever, food, just in spite.
I'm quite a sensitive fellow, yet your sermons made me crave a hamburger!
Whoa, check it out, there was a winky face there. Did you miss the winky face? It was a joke...
"You think you're better than people who eat regular meat"? Nice of you to try and second guess what I am thinking, but I'm afraid telling other people what you think they're thinking is adding nothing to the conversation...
"It's quite irritating, so people might start buying "intensive farmed", or whatever, food, just in spite. " - Jeez Goldmund, you seem very upset. You think this thread is soley crafted simply to upset you. You also think that you should go make yourself a cup of tea and calm down for a while. You think perhaps you should reconsider your post, then try posting again when you have something valuable to add to the discussion. You think I'm really attractive and cool. You think you should probably send me money, but then you change your mind and think, no, instead you'll spend that money on buying free range meat from now on. You feel pleased with yourself for coming up with this idea.
You also realise that of course when people feel strongly about something they're going to be eager to discuss it with others, and that is all part of people having their own opinion and discussing it on the internet. You understand that when people discuss things that they have a lot of belief in, and the arguments become heated, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are self-righteous and judgemental. You feel a bit silly about your post now.
You apologise to me and I accept your apology.
Geeze guys, do we really have to bring back the fighting on the Internet macro? :=
Seriousnesslessly though you guys, this is actually a very interesting thread. Clearly different people have their own opinions on these matters, some of us very strong opinions, some of us a bit more "on the fence," but simply because we don't see eye-to-eye on this doesn't mean we have to take it personally. That goes for both sides, including myself.
Although Yufster has made it clear that she feels very strongly that anyone who's going to eat meat should purchase only free range products, it doesn't give anyone who disagrees with her the right to bash her opinion. Conversely, it doesn't give Yufster the right to bash anyone who doesn't agree with her.
Ultimately, the point I'm getting at is this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dYpnd_9TFs). :P
Quote from: Domino on Sat 10/01/2009 02:06:36
This video will make you very unhappy. I love eating meat, but this vid brings a tear to my eye. :'( :'( :'( :'(
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-513747926833909134
Well, that SHIT :( I also said - don't ask where your food comes from. And I can never be able to eat an animal I've taking care for for so long. Don't understand how people cultivate animals (chicken, pigs, lambs etc) and after a while they slaughter them with the same hands they have fed them with. ??? :-[
Quote from: rbaleksandar on Mon 12/01/2009 09:15:37
Don't understand how people cultivate animals (chicken, pigs, lambs etc) and after a while they slaughter them with the same hands they have fed them with. ??? :-[
I'll give you three good reasons:
Money, commerce and currency
Quote from: rbaleksandar on Mon 12/01/2009 09:15:37Don't understand how people cultivate animals (chicken, pigs, lambs etc) and after a while they slaughter them with the same hands they have fed them with. ??? :-[
It's simple, they're
not pets. And if you honestly can't understand that, then I fully expect you to either be a complete vegetarian or only eat intensively farmed meat.
Raising your own animals at the very least means you know that (pending how you treated them of course) your animals lead good and full lives before going to the dinner table. It means that you know they were killed humanely. And it also means that they taste super delicious! :D
I can understand how someone raised in a different situation would have a different viewpoint on this than what I do. It's not much, but I was raised on 4 acres of land. And I know what goes into raising these animals. And from the time I was very, very young I was taught that farm animals are not the same thing as pets.
It all comes down to your background though. Seriously, I doubt anyone here would look at Fido (or whatever you people name your dogs) and say that he looks about ready to be cooked up. But in the Philippines people eat dogs every single day. To them it's a matter of survival, but ultimately that's the reason why pigs and chickens and cows were domesticated in the first place.
i can tell you one, im not gona eat a sea kitten, there F'ed up
http://www.peta.org/sea_kittens/ ???
and any the animals gona die in the end anyway. :o
Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Mon 12/01/2009 16:49:48
Quote from: rbaleksandar on Mon 12/01/2009 09:15:37Don't understand how people cultivate animals (chicken, pigs, lambs etc) and after a while they slaughter them with the same hands they have fed them with. ??? :-[
It's simple, they're not pets. And if you honestly can't understand that, then I fully expect you to either be a complete vegetarian or only eat intensively farmed meat.
I eat vegetables - yes. But I love meat too :) What I am saying is if I know the source of my steak, I can't swallow it, because it pops into my mind the image of this same creature walking and mooing for example...Can't bear the thought of that :(
btw In some countries like Thiland dogs are like lamb steaks by us...A real hot DOG. I've seen even (in documentaries) how they tie the dog in a small bag and start beating the hell out of him (that is until it drops dead) just to make its meat more tender...Well, what's that? No matter what animal it is, if it had eaten out of my hand, I can't eat it.
Quote from: Babar on Sun 11/01/2009 14:29:22
I'm not a biologist or anything, but if no blood is going to the brain, they can't be feeling any pain, right?
Hey Babar, are you serious? What does have to see blood irrigation with the nervous system? Of course you can feelpain if there is no blood arriving to the brain. Another thing is falling unconscious, like we see in the Chinese movies, where the hero knocks down the bad guys by clamping the carotis. I am not sure about if that maneuver is so effective in real life as we see in HongKongWood... BTW, I can ensure you that if we cut the bloodstream by cutting the carotis (Halal System, if I am correct) might not be the worst way to kill, but can' t be nice, either.
(To clarify: I am not criticising the Halal ceremony... Basically I think we (Europe, America, Western counties...) do the same, but electroshocking the animal first so it can' t offer resistance to the cut... An electroshock that has been proved to be uneffective for make the animal faint, so, a cruel way to kill, quite worst than Halal, IMO...)
Now... My opinion about the subject: Allow me to develope it.
A) I don' t like seeing live animals suffering (Well... I might want to see some human beings suffering, but not animals), I think we should have them in free range, and kill them in the most humanitary possible way, including a correct way of transport to the slaughterhouse. That means that we should develope a way to kill them fast and with no pain. I would like my government to spent more money on advertising and promoting free range animal products, or even incentivate it with fiscal benefits and things like that... I would (I will) pay the extra money for that kind of meat.
B) I perfectly understand the "I am too poor to care for that stupidity. I want cheap meat" argument. I am nobody to go against that argument. "Normal meat" should be available for those who doesn' t want/can' t have "free range animal products". Free market. I would pay the extra for a humanitary way to farm animals. I wouldn't force anybody to do the same.
C) The "Real thing" to do if you reach certain degree of implication into "animal care" is to become vegetarian. (There are a lot of things to discuss into that, to be honest... There are dozens of animal species that wouldn't exist without human farming, because they basically are "evolutive losers", such as chickens or minks... But it' s okay, that should go to another thread).
D) Even with what I said before... Where are we going? There is a stream of "Gooddism" in the western contries that freak me out. Don' t missunderstand me. I think that these things make us what we are and differenciate us from another cultures, but... Aren't we going to far away? 60 years ago 8,000 guys died in a 5,000 yeards beach in one day for getting a military objective. Nowadays we complain because the same amount of ("our") people died in 5 years of conflict in Iraq. One day. 1,825 days. Compare.
But that' s not the only thing... We can not stand seeing our guys in black plastic bags. We can't see "their guys" either. If the army finds a column of Republican Guard fleding from Kuwait to Bassora and they kill them all, if a reporter comes there and takes photos, the whole campaign is doomed because "Public opinion can stand the massacre" (That happened in the Desert Storm... Because of that "Gooddism" we had to come back some years after...)
Same happens with civilian victims. "We" did the Dresde thing to give a lesson to the bad guys, 30,000 people died in one night. Now, a US missile loses a fin, it falls into the innadecuate place, kills three sheppards, and we organise a national movement to stop the war. 30,000 against 3.
Same with prisoners. I remember what "the bad guys" did to the "good guys" in Auschwitz, Kwai river or Hanoi Hilton. Now, if an idiot female GI gets photoshooted while doing the idiot with a naked prisioner, then "We must stop this, we are evil"
"Bad guys" call "us" the "paper tiger";
QuoteThey are not ready to see their soldiers in black plastic bags, they have fear to attack us if we mix into civilians, they won't bomb us if they have doubts, if you get captured they will treat you fine... They don' t have what is needed to win this war. We will win"
Any movement made by the "Good guys" that undermines that "image" of "paper tiger" has proven to be shocking to the enemy, such as attacks to South Lebanon or Gaza strips without taking care of the international reaction, or publishing the images of the navigations of Abu Ghraib. Hizbulá was shocked and made no further movement after the Israeli campaign in South Lebanon last year. Same happened in the Hamas HQ with the campaing happening this very moments. The level of attacks of the insurgency to american soldiers decreased dramatically after the photos of (the person I consider, IMHO, a whole idiot) Lynndie England were published. The "bad guys" thought "Wow! They can attack without previous warning, without taking into consideration what the people thinks" or "Wow... a 1,50 m. bitch is able, in that army, to do that to our soldiers... We must be carefulll with that people"
What I mean is not that "what we did" in the past (The WWII, Vietnam...) was ok. And this is very important:
I don' t mean that what I mentioned we do today (Lebanon campaign, Guantanamo, Gaza strip campaign, Abu Ghraib) is ok either. (Actually, I think it's bad, and I wish we didn' t had to do it...) But... What I mean is that we (Western country societies) were able to UNDERSTAND it, and now we CAN'T.
We are becoming pussies.
And all this "free range" animals thing is another step into that "Gooddism" direction that freaks me out.
As a society. Because as an individual, I am totally into that pussy state I criticised before. And I am proud of it. :)
Quote from: Nacho on Tue 13/01/2009 11:57:40
Any movement made by the "Good guys" that undermines that "image" of "paper tiger" has proven to be shocking to the enemy, such as attacks to South Lebanon or Gaza strips without taking care of the international reaction, or publishing the images of the navigations of Abu Ghraib. Hizbulá was shocked and made no further movement after the Israeli campaign in South Lebanon last year. Same happened in the Hamas HQ with the campaing happening this very moments. The level of attacks of the insurgency to american soldiers decreased dramatically after the photos of (the person I consider, IMHO, a whole idiot) Lynndie England were published. The "bad guys" thought "Wow! They can attack without previous warning, without taking into consideration what the people thinks" or "Wow... a 1,50 m. bitch is able, in that army, to do that to our soldiers... We must be carefulll with that people"
To me this passage seems very confused. The "wow...etc" argument seems extra contrived.
I'm disinclined to believe that those photos had any positive effects whatsoever, but instead increased the anti-americanism with some thousand percent. As with the American presence in middle-east in general, I'm quite sure they contributed to an increase in fundamentalism and support for terrorists.
Suicide-bombers don't really get cautious or affraid; they get angry and then they die.
Quote
We are becoming pussies.
I think we're becoming civilized.
As said, I do not endorse that we should do what I mentioned in that passage. I see nothing in your post meaning that you think that I think that, so, thank you very very very much. I was quite scared about the first reply to my post.
:)
Second: That you labelled as the "wow!" argument is real. It was something that was rolling into the different secret services around the world, and the effect it had on the insurgence and their mentality is something that was recorded and measured that days. The only thing I can tell to you about that subject is that you must trust me (Or at least, "trust my world that I read it in reliable sources... As international press is nowadays we can't assume anything written is real..) :) I can't find links to that info, but the sources were quite reliable. Anyway, don' t focus in Abu Ghraib, or the US. Focus in Israel. The effects of what they do when they decide not to care about the public opinion are clear and we can still be witnesses of them. No more attacks from Hizbula since the last campaign, one year ago.
We are becomed civilized. Yes. And as I said, I think that this is preciselly what differenciate us from other cultures.
And I like it, I mentioned it as well...
But my point was not if we must become civilized or not. I think everybody with brain should agree that the more civilized, the better. My point is that if it' s good that we reach a point were we are not able to admitt, as a civilization, the possibilty of evil, pain and suffering in the world. My point is that if it' s good that we become that civilized that we become naive, and totally unable to act when the bad moments arrive.
Just having a bit of fun here:
Quote from: ProgZombie
First of all, you have to choose whether or not you even believe that humans can suffer this thing called 'mental anguish'. We know from scientific (and unscientific) tests that they feel pain and have an instinctual fight or flight response to it, but since humans are not higher thinking, sentient beings, I do not believe they suffer 'mental anguish'. I think the abundance of shows by Disney and others have, over time, given some zombies a skewed perspective of mankind, making us feel guilty when we see "Little Tommy" slaughtered, and I refuse to feel guilty or selfish or any other nonsense because I like human flesh. It tastes wonderful!
On a serious note, I saw absolutely nothing wrong with any of those pictures you showed us, Yuffy, except for the one where the pigs are on the cement floor.
A bit of information on CowsI've worked on a dairy farm for about seven and a half years. Within that time I had been to other farms that are far better off than my brother's farm (where I worked). The cow will definately get used to the conditions, no matter where they are raised (outside, tie-up barn, free-stall, etc...).
Cows are outside pretty much all day anyway, given decent weather conditions. Then when it's time for milking, cows are driven inside either by the sound of a tractor/skidsteer or a group of people to get them in the barn. When in the barn a button is pressed and they are then forced to proceed forward by an electric gate, which gives them direction. After a few zaps to the ass they learn the routine rather quickly (I've been zapped quite a few times and it doesn't hurt, startles more than anything).
PAUSE: If you think the electric gate is cruel, then try standing there and talking to the cow in a sweet little voice (because they're so fucking cute!), "Come on, sweetie, you can do it, go on, girl, yes you're so cute, yes you are..." and see how far that'll get you.
Nowhere. Aint gonna happen.
Unless you raise like one or two cows and raise them like you would a pet, but that's a whole different story and discussion. Nobody has the patience, and more importantly, the
time to treat their whole herd as pets. So every one of your cows with a possible exception here and there will be instinctively skiddish around humans, even cute little kids.
And I don't care if your little girl won a cute contest.
UNPAUSE:
The path narrows forcing them into rows, and from there they get into their stalls (on their own) to be milked (the stalls are similar to the picture you provided). The cows are kept in that position only to be milked and then they are released back outside. The average cow takes about 5 to 8 minutes to milk from start to finish - and also depending on the breed of cow. In this case, I'm talking Holsteins.
Cows can be very cute, but I hate the ignorant motherfuckers. They are not desirable to work with, in numbers I mean, even working with 80 to 90 sucks.
Just as long as there's no senseless and excessive beating, I don't really give a shit about each individual cow's quality of life.
The thing is, we tend not to think of cows individually. I mean, when was the last time you were driving past a field and thought to yourself "Oh hey! There's a cow." I bet you thought "Oh hey! A herd of cows."
When was the last time you walked past a group of people and thought "oh there are some individuals gathered together in a group" rather than "there's a group of people?" I love dogs, but when I see a group of dogs I just think "huh, a pack of dogs". I guess what I'm saying is, I don't quite see the point in what you're saying? I don't mean that in a rude way, but I just don't get quite what you mean? Do you mean we've become kind of disconnected with cows as being other living creatures with feelings etc? If so, this may be true for some people but I think you'll agree that just because we have stopped regarding them as living beings doesn't necessarily mean that's right. They're as much living beings capable of fear and pain as our cats and dogs are, and to be able to forget that and turn a blind eye to their unecessary suffering... well what does that make us? I think we'd all like to think of ourselves as people who would not stand for seeing any living creature being unecessarily hurt or bullied. If you saw a group of kids kicking a dog you'd step in, right? If your neighbour kept his dog chained in his yard day and night in the rain and cold, you'd call up the RSPCA (or equivelent) wouldn't you? So why is it that so many of us can turn a blind eye to the suffering of cows and pigs and chickens? As you say it may be because we are so used to seeing them packaged as meat that we've forgotten that they deserve a decent life before their deaths too... but surely that's a rubbish excuse to turn a blind eye? If you've never met a pig or a cow or a chicken, let me tell you: they're pretty awesome. Not as awesome as my pet goat, but awesome nonetheless :)
Snake - maybe you didn't read the link text to the photos, some of them were actually examples of happy free range animals. However I'm worried if you don't see the problem with the photo of the chickens crammed together. Maybe you didn't see it? I am sad about this comment: I don't really give a shit about each individual cow's quality of life.
I've also lived on a farm and around farms, and I've seen both cows in a free range environment with minimal stresses, and cows in a much different, more intensive environment in which they were constantly stressed, reared (bizarrely, because I'm not even sure if it's that common with cows) in a dark shed in which they stood in a foot deep pile of their own shit all day long, giving some of them foot infections which made standing agonizing for them... not that they could lie down because they were standing in a foot deep slush of their own waste! So while I'm sure you've worked on a farm where the practises were quite good (and these are the kinds of practises I would like most people to adopt), other practises ARE put into place that are far less kind, on other farms. I'd also disagree with your statement that cows get used to their conditions - although they may not make such a fuss over them if they're not used to an alternative, it's still not a good or noble or kind thing to keep cows in the kind of environment my neighbour did. Also personally I don't want to eat a cow that's been marinated in its own shit before it gets slaughtered.
I believe pigs and chickens and turkeys overall get far worse treatment than cows anyway (I could be wrong but from my experience this is true), maybe if you are interested (which I gather you are at least a little if you took the time to reply in this thread) you should read about some of the horrible farming practises for those animals. In the UK at least it's easy, if you want to, to buy meat from the kinds of animals that you would have farmed
Basically what I'm saying is... it sounds like your experience of working on a farm is of working on a good farm, and those farms are excellent and I buy my meat from them (or from my free range butcher who sources from farms like this). But the issue I have and I think that people should be more aware of is that some farms are not like that - some have very very cruel practices that would make the average person buying meat from them absolutely sick. They treat animals not as animals, but as meat on legs. It extends beyond that too - cruel transportation practices are a problem. For instance, some animals spend weeks in transit in searing heat, unable to eat or drink regularly, unable to lie down or sit, standing in piles of their own waste before they are slaughtered. Their final hours are unbearable. Watching videos of pigs screaming in fear, horses wide eyed with panic, sheep and chickens falling over with exhaustion upon reaching their final destination - it's really fucking harsh and something that I'm amazed that any human being is actually physically able to oversee. That's a related issue to the subject of intensive farming, though also one worth mentioning I think.
So yeah... in conclusion... the farm you worked for sounds like a good farm. If you're interested in learning more about what I'm talking about, there are plenty of websites you can read and look at pictures. It's really horrific and unfortunately incredibly commonplace, so the more awareness is raised about it and people can make informed decisions, the better. Even if your decision is, as is so many other peoples in this thread, to continue buying the meat from abused animals (and really, no matter what your stance on the subject, these animals are abused).
If people treated cats or dogs in the same way as they treat intensively farmed chickens and pigs - and pigs for instance have the same level of intelligence and awareness as a dog or cat - then they would be charged with animal abuse and everyone would look down on them as being disgusting, cruel and evil people. But I guess for animals less cute or less commonly considered as pets or companions it's okay, eh?
I should clarify that I was just agreeing with Snake that people have become desensitised to the plight of cows and chickens as opposed to, say, dogs because we no longer think of them as individuals. It's not my personal standpoint, but the fact of the matter is that since most people think of livestock animals in "groups" they aren't as concerned about them as they are the animals that they still individualise. Is that clearer?
Ah okay I see what you mean. Well do you agree with what I said (that basically although that is the case, it shouldn't be - we shouldn't treat "less cute" animals in a way that would make us criminals if we treated a cat or a dog that way)? I think it's worth a thought.
It shouldn't be the case, no. That's the way that society has progressed, though, for better or worse. Maybe someday nobody will eat anything but free-range produce, and the animals will live in peace and prosperity for all their days. That day is not today, sadly.
And it would be hypocritical of me to just suddenly up and say OI OI I WILL HAVE NO MORE OF THIS INTENSIVE BALDERDASH because I've known about the issues and continue to just randomly buy whatever meat I happen to fancy cooking. It's not like I go out of my way to buy intensively-farmed meat, but I don't go out of my way to buy free-range either. I've never given much thought to where my food came from.
And I should also clarify this:
QuoteI am sad about this comment: <insert Snake's mouth here>
Well, what I was getting at there was simply that I wouldn't tuck them in, make sure they're not suicidal and read the damn things a bed time story before shutting off the lights at night.
Not that I don't care if they're getting the razor-edged whip every half hour because their lazy eye hasn't straightened out yet.
I think the solution to your problem would be for the employers to put up cameras to spot abuse by their employees.
And if the abuse is throughout the whole outfit, it should be shut down. Easier said than done of course, I know. If you're going to complain about what I just said, than why are you even posting here? Other than moral support, I don't see the point.
But, I must say that I'm not going to stop buying hamburg at
Shop n' Save because it doesn't have an "Abuse Free" label on it. How is anyone supposed to know for sure anyway? There's always going to be a cow somewhere that's getting kicked in the gut because she kicked the milker off (AGAIN), just like a kid getting their ass warmed after already being told twice not to talk back.
Or an employee of these said places that are abuse free that are beating the animals behind closed doors, or blind eyes, because it gets them off.
It'll never be solved. You can't win. I can't win.
I know I was an abusive asshole at times to the cows when I was pissed off, and it doesn't make me right for sure. Yeah, I agree with what you're trying to do, but it's an awful hard task to accomplish especially to be posting here about it instead of somewhere that would be more effective.
I don't agree with all the videos I see out here on the subject either (half, if not most are brutal, but not all); I know I could go to my brother's farm right now, with my video camera, film the whole night and come home. When I'm home, I'll edit the shit out of it so every time he slaps/smacks a cow for stepping on his foot/kicking milker off/etc.., I'll make sure to repeat it a dozon times (include slow-motion of course) with sad music playing to make it seem worse than what it is. I'll also make sure I film the large amounts of cow shit in the gutter since he can't afford to get the gutter chain replaced this winter, resulting in having to shovel it out by hand. I'll switch back and forth from the manuer to the cow's eyes. Since cows always have fluid running out of their eyes, I'll make it look like they are crying, people will be more saddened. I'll also make sure I shoot inside the calf pen where there is always a good amount calf piss because the price of sawdust went up (AGAIN). Hmm, let's get his cold-hearted ass out of the buisness, eh?
My brother loves cows and especially doesn't want to lose the farm that's been in the family since 1860.
But let's buy free range, shall we, since that will lessen the amount of money we get for the beef we sell, complementing the amount of money we lose because the cost of the milk truck just went up seven dollars, adding another nail in the coffin since you only get paid for the amount of milk you produce - not the amount of time, blood, sweat, frustration and don't forget the money that goes into making that milk.
Listen, I know I'm coming off as a total cunt, but I agree with you, you've got a great heart and your doing this post for the right reasons, you're a good person - but I'm just not going to spend the extra cash just for the label that says that the animal I'm about to fry in my scratched-up frying pan (with butter, salt and pepper) was treated fairly and was asked out to all the school dances.
Quote from: Nacho on Tue 13/01/2009 11:57:40
I think we should have them in free range, and kill them in the most humanitary possible way
The problem with that is that killing is inhumane in itself.
And isn't that belief that we should be "killing animals in the most humanitarian way possible" an act of Goddism that you suggested? Purely because of my above point.
I don't mean to sound harsh and I do agree with a lot of what you suggest about Goddism, it's just that this doesn't add up for me.
Let uncle Lay tell you all a tale. I'm not saying this is true, but it might enlighten some people.
There is a planet somewhere in the galaxy, where there are aliens, called Blorgs. The Blorgs like to travel, drink and eat fine food. On another continent of the planet, there are the Blargs, who are ignorant fat fast food eating alcoholics. One thing is, their favourite food is humans. The Blargs decide to transport 10 million humans to their planet and shove them all in cages, forcing them to eat gruel and fornicate with each other to produce more humans. When they are fattened enough, they shoot them in the stomach, as the eyeballs and brains are a delicacy and need to be preserved so not to loose their juicyness and flavour. Now, the Blorgs, being refined gentlemanly-like beings, relocate not only the humans, but all their possesions and everything. They go through their daily lives. Ripeness is at 40 years old. At this time, the humans are cleanly slaughtered and packaged in their local supermarket. Because the Humans have lived stress free, their bodies have aged at the correct speed. The stressed intensivly farmed humans bodies have aged much quicker due to hardship and stress.
Which Human would you rather be?
Basically, put yourselves in the animals position.
Personally, if I had to live with the knowledge that at age 40 I was going to die, thanks to aliens who like to eat people, I'd live as much as possible and try to live as happy as possible.
And before all you vegetarians pop up and say aha! You don't have to eat meat. Sod you. I like meat. It's tasty.
Quote from: Dudeman Thingface on Wed 14/01/2009 02:39:49
Quote from: Nacho on Tue 13/01/2009 11:57:40
I think we should have them in free range, and kill them in the most humanitary possible way
The problem with that is that killing is inhumane in itself.
And isn't that belief that we should be "killing animals in the most humanitarian way possible" an act of Goddism that you suggested? Purely because of my above point.
I don't mean to sound harsh and I do agree with a lot of what you suggest about Goddism, it's just that this doesn't add up for me.
Two topics... I divide my reply in two :)
A) Dudeman, remember that I said that if you really care too much about animals, the perfect option is to turn vegetarian. EVEN with that, I *think* there is a much more humanitarian way of killing than what we do now (Intensive farmering-Inhumane transport-electroshock and the final slaughtering) The sollution could be "Free range-Good transport and (As Babar said) Guillotine.
B) About "Gooddism" (It' s Gooddism, from "being too good", not "Goddism" from "Believe to be Gods", to clarify) ;)
I am perefectly aware of how contradictorious my post is, first saying "We should do this, and this" and after saying that the society is becoming too naive. But I must clarify that I was not really meaning that we, or our society should become "harder". Read my post again and see that what I really think is that the goal is to become everyday less and less violent and more civilized. My point is that as a SOCIETY (Not as a human BEINGS) we should be READY for that kind of things. We should be able to be ready, as a society, to fight, to see the effects of the war, to pay a price if we want to get something.
As human beings, as individuals, I see perfectly normal that our minds tend fights against all that things.
Quote from: Snake on Wed 14/01/2009 02:35:57
And I should also clarify this:
QuoteI am sad about this comment: <insert Snake's mouth here>
Well, what I was getting at there was simply that I wouldn't tuck them in, make sure they're not suicidal and read the damn things a bed time story before shutting off the lights at night.
Not that I don't care if they're getting the razor-edged whip every half hour because their lazy eye hasn't straightened out yet.
I think the solution to your problem would be for the employers to put up cameras to spot abuse by their employees.
And if the abuse is throughout the whole outfit, it should be shut down. Easier said than done of course, I know. If you're going to complain about what I just said, than why are you even posting here? Other than moral support, I don't see the point.
But, I must say that I'm not going to stop buying hamburg at Shop n' Save because it doesn't have an "Abuse Free" label on it. How is anyone supposed to know for sure anyway? There's always going to be a cow somewhere that's getting kicked in the gut because she kicked the milker off (AGAIN), just like a kid getting their ass warmed after already being told twice not to talk back.
Or an employee of these said places that are abuse free that are beating the animals behind closed doors, or blind eyes, because it gets them off.
It'll never be solved. You can't win. I can't win.
I know I was an abusive asshole at times to the cows when I was pissed off, and it doesn't make me right for sure. Yeah, I agree with what you're trying to do, but it's an awful hard task to accomplish especially to be posting here about it instead of somewhere that would be more effective.
I don't agree with all the videos I see out here on the subject either (half, if not most are brutal, but not all); I know I could go to my brother's farm right now, with my video camera, film the whole night and come home. When I'm home, I'll edit the shit out of it so every time he slaps/smacks a cow for stepping on his foot/kicking milker off/etc.., I'll make sure to repeat it a dozon times (include slow-motion of course) with sad music playing to make it seem worse than what it is. I'll also make sure I film the large amounts of cow shit in the gutter since he can't afford to get the gutter chain replaced this winter, resulting in having to shovel it out by hand. I'll switch back and forth from the manuer to the cow's eyes. Since cows always have fluid running out of their eyes, I'll make it look like they are crying, people will be more saddened. I'll also make sure I shoot inside the calf pen where there is always a good amount calf piss because the price of sawdust went up (AGAIN). Hmm, let's get his cold-hearted ass out of the buisness, eh?
My brother loves cows and especially doesn't want to lose the farm that's been in the family since 1860.
But let's buy free range, shall we, since that will lessen the amount of money we get for the beef we sell, complementing the amount of money we lose because the cost of the milk truck just went up seven dollars, adding another nail in the coffin since you only get paid for the amount of milk you produce - not the amount of time, blood, sweat, frustration and don't forget the money that goes into making that milk.
Listen, I know I'm coming off as a total cunt, but I agree with you, you've got a great heart and your doing this post for the right reasons, you're a good person - but I'm just not going to spend the extra cash just for the label that says that the animal I'm about to fry in my scratched-up frying pan (with butter, salt and pepper) was treated fairly and was asked out to all the school dances.
Snake I think you're misunderstanding the issue. I can't be 100% sure but from what you're saying, you seem to think I have beef with people hitting cows when herding them or occasionally getting frustrated at a pig that won't get into his pen. This is not the kind of abuse I'm talking about (in fact having lived on a farm I can agree with you that this is not actually abuse, I'm under no illusions about that).
It sounds like the farm you worked on was a good farm with decent practises, and that's the kind of farming I think should be promoted. Maybe where you're from the type of intensive farming I'm talking about is more rare. I could be wrong but if you live somewhere in middle America with loads of open land and pastures, it's possible that they ALL farm out on open ranches and all the animals are able to roam free range before they die. That would be awesome.
The type of farming I'm talking about is actually a very cruel intensive practise that is used in some places, and is very commonplace actually.
Here's a video about intensive farmed chicken Snake, which I think you should watch so you'll know what it is I'm talking about. I've raised free range chickens before and they had very low mortalities... the only chick that ever died was eaten by a fox! Bear in mind that the chickens in this video are all in a lot of pain because their fragile bone structure is unable to support their weight. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4vimEBT4plc&feature=related
It is no wonder that stress levels in the birds are high and that continuous use of anti-biotic is needed to keep the birds alive. Growth promoters are also sometimes fed to force the rate of growth. Very often the birds grow so fast that their legs cannot support their bodies. Large extractor fans ensure that ammonia levels are kept to bearable levels. Because much of the birds' time is spent sitting in cramped conditions, and as no fresh litter is given, the legs and breasts of many birds are burnt by the manure.Here's some information that I beg you to read about battery farmed chicken eggs. The price between free range eggs and battery eggs is so small and affordable too... http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/egg-battery.html
Battery hens are debeaked with a hot machine blade once and often twice during their lives, typically at one day old and again at seven weeks old, because a young beak will often grow back. Debeaking causes severe, chronic pain and suffering researchers compare to human phantom limb and stump pain. Between the horn and bone of the beak is a think layer of highly sensitive tissue. The hot blade cuts through this sensitive tissue impairing the hen's ability to eat, drink, wipe her beak, and preen normallyHaving read that Snake, can you honestly tell me you don't care about the lives of the chickens before their slaughter? I raised chickens and I raised them in a free range environment where they could grow to become inquisitive, happy, bold hens who clucked about happily, gave themselves dust baths and came squawking anytime they saw me with what they suspected might be treats. So seeing those hens in abject misery and completely unnatural conditions is sad for me, and I can't imagine how it could be less sad for anyone else... especially you, if you have (as I suspect) come from the same farming background as I have - where animals are raised outdoors in traditional ways :)
PS. Here's an amazing interview I just read with Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall who is a guy I have the utmost respect for:
Why is this such an important issue to you?Chickens were the first ever livestock that I raised at River Cottage. They've been giving me eggs and meat all my life, and now I rear my own. And I think they're the front line of animal welfare in this country, and the way in which they're farmed is something to which the public are denied access.
Why was it necessary to set up your own intensive chicken farm?It seems counterintuitive, doesn't it? Basically, we tried to get access to the industry but approaches were shut down pretty quickly. So the clear, if slightly warped logic, was that I would have to raise at least one crop of standard birds according to industry regulations in order to fully understand it. It was in a scaled down experiment - we raised 2,500 birds.
The fact that no intensive farmers wanted to allow you access tells its own story, doesn't it?I think that's right, yes. At the heart of the problem is a bird which is now more or less a genetic freak. It takes half the time [less than 40 days] to raise a bird to market weight of two kilos than it did 30 years ago. And, in order to do that, you need very specialised conditions: [the chickens] are indoors and are completely without natural light so that they are constantly feeding.
It must have been emotionally difficult for you to operate in that kind of environment.Definitely, at times it was very difficult. At times I was carried along by the sheer amount of work to do, and the fascination of it. There is a grim fascination in the simple business of how this is done. On one level, I had a grudging respect for people who run such farms, because they're so finely-tuned - it's such a delicate balance you have to get to produce these birds in this way.
What kind of reception did you get from the poultry farmers in the industry?I talked to a number of them, mostly off the record, and they're keen to work in a less intensive industry, but they can't do it as long as the supermarkets and the fast food outlets are demanding such low prices from them. Given a choice, most farmers would prefer to de-intensify.
Aside from the ethics of this issue, is the quality of meat you get from an intensive bird considerably inferior?Absolutely. On several occasions during the series we offer people free-range chicken, sometimes for the first time, and they said categorically that they could taste the difference.
What was the idea behind getting the local housing estate involved?They were representative of the supermarket shoppers from Axminster. They're from the tough end of town and, a lot of them are on a tight budget. So for them it was really about getting them to see beyond the bargain two-for-a-fiver label, and getting to know the bird and getting to understand that all chicken they buy has had some kind of life.
Inevitably, there's a trade off for them, shopping on a budget. You do confront that issue, don't you?We do. Of course, there are people on a very tight budget for whom that would be a real struggle. But at the same time, if the minimum welfare standards for indoor poultry were raised, those people could eat cheaper chicken with a clearer conscience.
I just went and bought free-range eggs just for you, Meowster. :P
Wow really??? Yay!!!! :D!
:) you made me smile and woop!
I watched the video and read the material. I do see more of the point and I have obviously missed some of it.
I don't know what to say, Yuffy. I mean, I'm all for good causes and the like, but I just don't know what to say.
You and AnimalAid are right, though, there's no need for these chickens to be raised so carelessly.
What are these activists aiming to do? Shut them down? Or just get people not to eat them?
What I don't understand, from the farm in the video, is why haven't they been warned about the sanitary aspect of the facility? In my eyes that's the only thing I'm worried about, you know, the chickens haivng to lay down in their own waste. I've been to a chicken farm that was almost a dead-ringer for the one in the video (except I wasn't there at midnight with my camera and nightvision) and everything was great, proper ventilation, sunlight (like being outside, sunlight), adequate food and water and fresh bedding.
But like I was saying before. There should always be a person (sometimes known as "The Inspector") that visits the farm monthly (and unexpectedly - that's how they getcha') to inspect the buisness and check if everything is sanitary and running occording to regulation. If not, you get a warning and a chance to clean up, if you don't, then you're shut down. Why are they still in buisness? All AnimalAid would have to do is show this inspector person the video and they'd definately get a talking to - or at least one would imagine.
I enjoy freeing animals from those terrible conditions by eating them
Quote from: SSH on Wed 14/01/2009 17:23:52
I enjoy freeing animals from those terrible conditions by eating them
So you buy them alive and bite them to death?
Haven't you ever been told that they taste more delicious if they were slaughtered by your own jaws? ;D
Quote from: Trihan on Wed 14/01/2009 16:56:50I just went and bought free-range eggs just for you, Meowster. :P
Quote from: Meowster on Wed 14/01/2009 17:06:24Wow really??? Yay!!!! :D!
:) you made me smile and woop!
Hehe... I saw him lobbing them at some cows earlier ;D
Quote from: Snake on Wed 14/01/2009 17:11:04
I watched the video and read the material. I do see more of the point and I have obviously missed some of it.
I don't know what to say, Yuffy. I mean, I'm all for good causes and the like, but I just don't know what to say.
You and AnimalAid are right, though, there's no need for these chickens to be raised so carelessly.
What are these activists aiming to do? Shut them down? Or just get people not to eat them?
What I don't understand, from the farm in the video, is why haven't they been warned about the sanitary aspect of the facility? In my eyes that's the only thing I'm worried about, you know, the chickens haivng to lay down in their own waste. I've been to a chicken farm that was almost a dead-ringer for the one in the video (except I wasn't there at midnight with my camera and nightvision) and everything was great, proper ventilation, sunlight (like being outside, sunlight), adequate food and water and fresh bedding.
But like I was saying before. There should always be a person (sometimes known as "The Inspector") that visits the farm monthly (and unexpectedly - that's how they getcha') to inspect the buisness and check if everything is sanitary and running occording to regulation. If not, you get a warning and a chance to clean up, if you don't, then you're shut down. Why are they still in buisness? All AnimalAid would have to do is show this inspector person the video and they'd definately get a talking to - or at least one would imagine.
See that's the problem... it's perfectly legal to treat chickens like this. That's what I can't believe! Nobody could come and shut these places down because they're entirely legal. Which is what AnimalAid are trying to do - get these condition outlawed. The WSPA are also a great organization, they help to protect animals from things such as long distance transportation before slaughter (which is another really unthinkably horrific torture for animals), and they do so by trying to get laws changed and regulations put in place to stop it from happening. Which I think is the right way to do it.
The intensive barn you're describing sounds a little better, but there are still practises like having the chickens 'debeaked', and the fact they use specially bred chickens that cannot support their own weight by the time they've reached a few weeks old - meaning they live most of their short life in pain. It these practises were outlawwed I think it'd make a big difference for the chicken's welfare and be a step in the right direction.
I believe Britain is planning to phase out the very worst kind of battery farms within the next few years, which sounds great on the surface.... But there are worries that the cheapest retailers (such as Asda and Tescos) or companies using chicken or eggs as ingredients in their products, will simply import cheap eggs etc from overseas where the animals are treated just as badly (potentially worse depending on where they're imported from). It's never easy is it? :(
I hope the government also plans to put regulations in place to prevent companies from being cheap-asses and just imported cheap, nastily produced meat and eggs from abroad, but I think whether they do or don't it's still important for consumers to take a stand against this kinda thing.
Obviously not all chickens are gonna be super epic free-range with hundreds of acres of lush land to peck about on, but I really want to see the conditions improved for those less lucky... no debeaking, no cages, freedom to perch and explore, no starving to force them to moult, no rapid-growing breeds of chicken that can't support their own weight.
After the general reactions to this thread I'm inclined to believe that it's far easier to go free-range/organic in the UK. In the UK something has to follow a strict set of rules to be have an "organic" label, and in terms of chickens this means that they have the best welfare standards possible... Any chicken labelled "organic" here, for instance, must be outdoor raised, slow-growing and fed decent healthy food without growth enhancers etc. We also have supermarkets that label things clearly (some don't, such as tescos I think), and lots of local butchers who source their meat from small local farms. I think we have it easy. It's easy for us to go into a supermarket and make a conscious decision because everything is clearly labelled, and I suspect very much that since it's so much more common here, that the price difference between free-range/organic isn't as extreme as it may be elsewhere. Maybe a solution would be to bring in regulations that require meat and eggs packaging to state the source and details such as the farming methods used, where the animal was raised and slaughtered (for instance I'd avoid even organic free range meat if it was raised in germany and slaughtered in the UK... it means the animal suffered an unnecessarily long and stressful journey before it's end when I could just buy the nice piece of locally produced beef next to it!). Maybe if people were readily given this information they'd naturally sway towards buying better produced meat? Hmm I don't know. I just made myself sad.
One day I'll live on a farm again and will have the plumpest, healthiest chickens you ever did see.
Quote from: Stupot on Wed 14/01/2009 19:20:54
Quote from: Trihan on Wed 14/01/2009 16:56:50I just went and bought free-range eggs just for you, Meowster. :P
Quote from: Meowster on Wed 14/01/2009 17:06:24Wow really??? Yay!!!! :D!
:) you made me smile and woop!
Hehe... I saw him lobbing them at some cows earlier ;D
Lies!
If you want to convert people to vegetarianism then just show them what happens in those meat processing plants. I remember this episode of "60 Minutes" about the poultry business where they talked about how the chickens were allowed to soak in water to keep them cool or some such thing. This was bad because often times the intestines would get ripped open somewhere along the line causing feces to spill out into said water, the part that really stuck though was when the guy referred to the water as "fecal stew", let me tell you that put me off of chicken for a while. The packaging of other meat products probably isn't a whole let better.
Meowster, after reading your last few posts it seems to me that your only real issues with battery farming are the dubious/unhealthy practices used to rear so many chickens for slaughter in such a short space of time, which I think practically everyone has issue with, really. I'm not really concerned at all with how 'happy' an animal I'm going to eat is or was (and if it's even possible), but it should not be forced to live in its own filth or be injected with hormones to speed its growth, either. I'm rather surprised these places aren't hit with massive health violations, particularly in light of the medical evidence uncovered during China's round with Bird Flu. They're certainly putting more than the animals' health at risk with these practices, and that's definitely an issue worth thinking about since we're eating these animals.
I'm also against this kind of cruelty described in the previous two posts (who in their right mind wouldn't be), but it should be said that these investigative TV shows are sensationalist and heavily edited for maximum emotional response. A lot of people will fall for anything if it is presented to them on a news channel by a man in a suit. They're as concerned about ratings as they are about chickens. So to us it may look like this kind of behaviour is going on all around us, and chickens are dropping like flies left, right and center. But how do we know they didn't just film one or two bad eggs and make it look like an international crisis.
Not all intensive farmers are the spawn of Hitler... some of them are just trying to earn a living.
An animal isn't happy if it dies a fast death.. an animal isn't happy if it dies a slow death.
An animal is happy if it gets to live.
A human is happy if he/she dies a fast death, a human isn't happy he didn't get the fast death and got the slow death.
A human is miserable if he/she gets to live if life has been bad with him/her so far.
Not buying meat won't change the fact that millions of animal life a sucky life and die.
Example:
Chickens are fed so much they can't even walk. Do you think they care how they die? If you were in their place Meowster, would you? Not really. And even if companies were forced to "respect" what they kill to make your food..they would. But still make the poor things suffer while alive, but well ...they'd treat them right before they kill them.
So the point shouldn't be "They kill them without respect, don't buy products"
But "I'm willing not to eat chicken anymore, since they treat them without respect do the same so companies will consider a different approach."
Not that it would work.
QuoteChickens are fed so much they can't even walk. Do you think they care how they die? If you were in their place Meowster, would you? Not really. And even if companies were forced to "respect" what they kill to make your food..they would. But still make the poor things suffer while alive, but well ...they'd treat them right before they kill them.
I never said anything about how they feel about dying, it's the life they lead before death that bothers me, and probably quite bothers them too. I don't understand what you're saying? "They'd make them suffer while alive but treat them right before they kill them"? What does this sentence mean?
QuoteSo the point shouldn't be "They kill them without respect, don't buy products"
But "I'm willing not to eat chicken anymore, since they treat them without respect do the same so companies will consider a different approach."
I think you've entirely missed the point I've made over and over again. You can buy free range meat from butchers, that is certified as having come from farms with good animal welfare practises. If you buy this meat instead of badly farmed meat, you are 1) helping to 'force' intensive farmers to change their practises since more people will be buying free range and 2) supporting the farmers with decent practises who already exist.
I'm not quite sure I get your point to be honest, but it sounds like you're saying the only way to change anything is to stop eating meat at all?
Stupot: I'm glad you're against the cruelty but if you don't believe it really happens on a wide scale then I can't really do much to change your mind. I've seen these places with my own eyes, it's a well known fact they exist, it's not just propaganda from animal rights activists. The people who claim they believe it's all just propaganda are usually the people who feel uncomfortable, in my experience, of buying this meat and want to pretend to themselves it isn't happening. But it is and if you don't believe that I don't know what to say to convince you.
Look at all the cheap meat products in the cheapest supermarkets - everything from frozen chicken pies to chicken tikka sandwich filler, or ham spread, or own brand mayonnaise... where do you think all this incredibly cheap meat comes from?
ProgZ: My issue is animal welfare AND hygiene too. The animal welfare one bugs me most as I don't buy cheap meat so I'm not putting myself at risk by eating it, whereas animals will continue to suffer horribly whether I avoid their meat or not :(
Also talking of Bird Flu, I believe that it was shown that the bird flu travelled by road routes used to transport cheaply produced live animals. Don't quote me because I'm not sure of the exact details, but I believe scientists proved that it mainly travelled because of humans, and not migratory birds etc. Then look at things like BSE which I believe originated from feeding cows cheap feed made of each others brains or something? So yeah the hygiene is a pretty fucking big issue and one definitely worth mentioning. Also if it helps people make a change to more ethically farmed meat and some animals are happier in the process, win :)
Quote from: Meowster on Sun 11/01/2009 20:42:54
Jeez Goldmund, you seem very upset. You think this thread is soley crafted simply to upset you.
Honestly, I think the thread is crafted to make me crave these:
(http://www.foxnews.com/images/298141/0_61_hamburger.jpg)
QuoteYou think I'm really attractive and cool.
Sure, but also devastating to my cholesterol level.
Don't worry Goldmund, in time you will realise that nobody is out to get you personally and that you may be overreacting just a little bit.
No i say it's hypocritic (if I spelled this wrong kill me) to refuse to eat meat from an animal that has been badly killed without respect and all, and do it while eating a meat, presuming that this one you're eating has been given the right respect on its death, despite both of them were badly treated as they were alive.
So you're in support of my argument? I'm not sure I quite understand? The point I'm making is that ideally, animals should be given a good life AND a fast and painless-as-possible death. This is what you're saying too, right?
I think that he means that if you REALLY care about animals, turn vegetarian. (I think that' s what he mean, that doesn' t mean I really agree...)
Quote from: Meowster on Mon 19/01/2009 19:08:08
So you're in support of my argument? I'm not sure I quite understand? The point I'm making is that ideally, animals should be given a good life AND a fast and painless-as-possible death. This is what you're saying too, right?
Point is they usually get none of those two, so well unexpectedly it just occured that I do agree, yes. Not sure if deciding not to buy meat or at least certain meat will do any good. If it would do, I'm quite sure that only not buying meat at all would really shake someone. But well, don't know for you, but I really can't turn into a veg. Can't refuse a souvlaki.
Quote from: Goldmund on Mon 19/01/2009 00:49:21
Honestly, I think the thread is crafted to make me crave these:
(http://www.foxnews.com/images/298141/0_61_hamburger.jpg)
That looks like a goddamn tasty burger! I prefer steak though.
(http://www.silvercreekfd.com/images/Grilled_Steak.jpg)
Is it really that bad if I want my meat to have suffered a bit before it died?
...
I'm just kidding. I'm a veggie :P
Goldmund. At Mittens you and I definitely need to track down some big sonofabitchin' burgers like that.
And eat them all.
Mittens Burgerfest 2009!
http://mobilemeatmachines.blogspot.com/2009/01/chicken.html
Doing my bit to spread awareness about battery farming!
You see? I CARE!
Only way a consumer is really going to know how his/her food is grown/bred is to visit the farm producing the goods, and even then the farm is subject to change due time. Of course we don't have time to visit farmers in this day and age unless we're on Top Chef. That's why reasonable laws towards both the consumer and farmer should be placed to ensure the sanitary aspect of food. I think the sanitary aspect is coming ever more important as it's quite obvious that every company - whether daycare, your doctor or the meat processing plant - in the whole world is trying to cut corners in wherever they can if it turns profit.
Meowster: I'm not entirely sure about this, but if I recall right, the "free range" label doesn't have any real value in it. You can pretty much stick it in your product and you're good to go. At least in some countries from where the producer then can export to other countries. Just a recollection so I could be wrong about this one.
Have you thought about writing to a congressman/what have you? Legislation is pretty much the only effective way to make a change these days. Wearing a slogan t-shirt and pointing fingers is only a sure way to get ridiculed. Also it wouldn't hurt to know all the details other than few youtube clips and PETA leaflets and come up with more solutions than to just "change brands", "vote with your wallet" or "stop eating meat". The sanitary approach would be a whole lot more sane and approachable by the average person than the chicken have feelings too one.
I myself would want to enforce laws and practices that would produce only clean food. That's the only thing that matters to me personally, but I wouldn't mind finding some other answers to things like debeaking and other cruel-seeming methods. Somebody should just innovate as efficient methods for the problems farmers face everyday without it costing a fortune.
Food for thought:
shoppers duped with 500 million 'free-range' fakes (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1533795.ece)
Organic food scams (http://www.safefromscams.co.uk/OrganicFoodScam.html)
Quote5. Is it true that a lot of "free-range" eggs are from birds that are really being raised in confinement?
Yep, it's true, all right. All the "official" free-range systems that I've come across are scams, at least by my standards. This includes both the totally unconvincing U.S. free-range egg producers, and the "Let's give our scam a governmental seal of approval" EU system.
My test for a free-range system being "real" goes like this: If you move all the feeders and waterers outside, do any chickens die of hunger or thirst? Obviously, in a true free-range system, where all the chickens wander in and out of the building all day, it doesn't really matter if the feeders and waterers are indoor or outdoors. They'll be fine either way.
But in fake free range, the goal is to run a factory-farm operation while getting a price premium for the "free-range" label. The best way of doing this is to discourage the chickens from going outside, through the use of doors that are too few or too small, and by other methods. If only a handful of chickens actually go outside, you've really got a confinement operation, and can run it like any other factory farm. But if most of the chickens never go outside, if you moved the feeders and waterers outdoors, many of the chickens would die.
Here's how you do this: Chickens can recognize about 100 other chickens, and hang out with the ones they know. If they have to go past a lot of strangers to get outside, they won't go outside. So all it takes is a long walk past other chickens, and they'll never even try to go out the door. Given the immense size of modern chicken houses, this problem is almost insurmountable. You have to use more and smaller houses if you want to do it right. This, plus the other sources of increased labor in real free range, makes real free-range eggs very expensive to produce. I guess consumers prefer scam eggs to the more expensive real ones.
The same situation is true to an even larger degree with free-range broilers, since meat birds have been bred for lethargy, and are less willing to trek long distances to reach an outside door.
Above quote is from http://www.plamondon.com/faq_myths.html (http://www.plamondon.com/faq_myths.html)
Hey Pixel,
In the UK there are strict laws around what you can label as free range. It's also very easy over here to see when things are for instance, approved by the Soil Association (which garuantees the highest standard of animal welfare). I think organic food is a completely separate issue.
Some people still ATTEMPT to label things misleadingly (I once nearly bought battery eggs because the farm name was FREEDOM FARM and was plastered in big letters across the box...), but the attempts are weak because of how strict things are over here.
The US could perhaps adopt a similar approach? The fact that people are allowed to misleadingly label things and that there are no strict guidelines as to what makes up "organic" or "free range" etc is pretty poor for the consumer really, and also it shouldn't have to prevent people from trying to buy ethically... but from what I can see, it does...
I agree 100% that the choice to consumer should be made easier than to make him/her plow through pages of guidelines and regulations in order to make an educated decision about a few food items. Good to know UK has things going good over there.
Maybe people in other countries would care more as in make the "right" decision if the "free range" was thoroughly enforced with inspections and the review would be publicly available (so you could count on it) and there were one of two different stickers on the box depending. "free range" text or "battery" text. Only problem is that people in charge usually try to play nice and go with the money making rather than public good.
You have your heart in the right place and it's good to know that not all of us are so absorbed by ourselves as most of us are.
Unfortunately it seams that being a vegan is not enough to save you anymore.
Now we have to worry about e-coli in our spinach or salmonella in our peanut butter.
What exactly are we supposed to eat anyway? >:(
Quote from: mkennedy on Fri 30/01/2009 11:19:38
What exactly are we supposed to eat anyway? >:(
You have a couple of lovely pics in the above posts to show you what you're supposed to eat! :=
(joke, sorry, couldn't resist, don't take it seriously, thank you)
Quote from: mkennedy on Fri 30/01/2009 11:19:38
What exactly are we supposed to eat anyway? >:(
Mostly everything but with variation as the main subject.
Its not bad eating fat food etc, you just gotta eat less fatty food aswell.
If you eat alot of different things all the time I think you will live more healthy than people who ONLY eat VEG etc.
And you can allways have a salad to your dinner no matter what you eat!
Ive even eaten pizza with salad to it! (quite nice actually!).
Now this has nothing to do with free range products..
Anyway, here in Norway I think mostly everything is free range anyway, also we dont have the cheaper solution of meat products like you do mostly everywhere else. So mostly everything is allready good quality etc.
Also the life on meat here seems to be better, and you dont have to throw it away if its a couple of days out of date.
(though you should offcourse still be carefull.)
(We do have some but mostly frozen meat, like burgers. but other than that there aint much cheaper solutions.)
I meant what can be eaten SAFELY without dying a horrible death from food poisoning.
The safest thing I could think of would be to just cook the hell out of everything before you eat it weather it's meat, or veggies.
As for the whole animal rights stuff, one day they will be able to grow meat in a lab and then you won't have to worry about its feeling because it will just be a slab of muscle tissue with no brains or organs.