Please buy Free Range animal products!

[Meowster]

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.

[LimpingFish]

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.

[Stupot]

So 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 to plug their free-range produce. 

[Sam.]

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.

[ThreeOhFour]

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

The fact that it was in a cherry tree makes it seem even more ninja!

[Ghost]

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).

[ThreeOhFour]

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.

[MillsJROSS]

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.

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

[bicilotti]

(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:

These 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.

[Dudeman Thingface]

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':

"For all the compasses in the world there is only one direction, and time its only measure"

[ThreeOhFour]

(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:

These 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.

[monkey0506]

The 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 ) 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 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 burgersâ,,¢

[i stole your car]

The 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.

[Babar]

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.

[ThreeOhFour]

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.

[Stupot]

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.

[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.

[ThreeOhFour]

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 .

[MillsJROSS]

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

[ThreeOhFour]

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

[Trihan]

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.