Meat-eating and the industry

[Eoghan]

Anyway, Eoghan, thanks for also buying into the finger-pointing game. It's a fun one, isn't it? You demonize me, I demonize you. Yeah, let me tell you just how much more sensible your post is than mine.

Sarabi, I never opposed your opinions, and I don't point any fingers at you, no matter what you choose to believe. I merely stated that in a debate one should refrain from using name-callings and such just because someone else started it. By blurting out comments before your brain has gone over them at least once before you write them might just as well make you lose the debate, even if your opinions would happen to be the most sensible and good ones among those presented.

That the meat industry is a cruel industry is a fact, and the way chicken and other animals are treated in the meat industry is disgusting and really should be dealt with and debated in public forums. I agree with you on this point to 100%, but comparing cannibalism to the eating of chickens, or accusing Zorba of being a Chinese dictator because he doesn't agree with you took your debating awa' from sensible and into cuckoo-land.

[Hoogstwaarschijnlijk]

It is really a difficult and weird thing, isn't it? Of course, chocolat is cheaper than apples (although, one chocolat bar is more expensive than three apples I think), but going to the MacDonalds is way more expensive than preparing a meal with rice and vegatables. And it is taking less time: for the MacDonalds you need to go to a restaurant and stuff, so you only spare time as you are nearby already, if you need to catch a train or something. This has been all pointed out by others, but it still surprises me, I don't really get why poor people would go to the MacDonalds more often, except for the youth that go after school because they are pressured by their friends. If all of your friends go, you're not going to say: hey, I'm going home, I want an apple." So education might help a bit there. On the other hand I'm a bit scared of education, because I don't think it is very good when people think too much about what they eat. You can't give education only to the people with an unhealthy live-style, so you're also going to give education to people who normally eat quite well, but are sensitive of becoming fat. With more education, they might get more easily an eating disorder.

Okay, that's not really about the meat industry, but everyone knows that it is a very cruel industry. Most industries are. But people simply like the taste of meat and when they can afford meat, they will eat it, although it is more healthy to eat less of it. Same with sugar things. So people like meat and they can afford it, but if they can chose between cheap meat and expensive meat, they will chose cheap. Just because the chicken is already dead so it doesn't matter anymore. And some people will think about it more and will buy biological food or quit eating meat, but most just don't. Education might help here too.

[Lada]

But seriously, they're damn animals, it's not like we're promoting the genocide of the Hutus. I think it's much more important that we provide people with food that they can actually afford than we make the lives comfortable of animals who we're going to slaughter, chop up, throw away most of the body, subject to deadly temperatures, masticate, and finally break down into necessary chemicals and dispose of the rest into a toilet. And frankly, preparing yourself food takes a lot of work and energy, not to mention time and money.

exactly what I think. May be I'm cruel but I don't give a ... about poor animals. I eat meat, all kinds of meat, I can't live without it.

IMHO it's quite useless to bother about animals while million of people still starving, still can't get even your trashy McDonald's food and simply die. May be it's a fashion in the West to care about chickens? But even if it's so, this fashion trend is nothing but words. Donate money to Africa better.

That's why I believe that everyone should be educated about what he eats and how it's produced.

Everyone knows that McDonald's is dangerous, that coke is poison, how many articles have been written about it? Millions! But people still eat, still drink this ... and people will go there forever, just because: it's really fast and relatively cheap. This works especially in big cities where people are always in a hurry, well I think it's all obvious.

Also do you really think that buying "healthy" food, it's really healthy? Genetic-modified products is what we all buy in super-markets. I buy products with label "NO GMO" (they are the most expensive), though I don't believe even in it.
Next point is hygiene. All product factories (majority) employ immigrants and usually brake all hygiene norms in order to produce more, nobody cares about the quality. It's situation in Russia, may be in the West situation with hygiene is better but not with the way of production. Juices produced in Europe were the worst I've ever tried....

[Zorba]

@ Zorba: So you think we just leave things as they are? To hell with health and everything, just let the kids go to McDonalds every day because they don't know any better? To hell with education, it's their own fault they know nothing about where food comes from, how it is produced, etc.? So we simply ignore that many teenagers are too fat? We simply ignore that many young children go to school malnourished and hungry every day? Yeah, just let them do that, it's their upbringing, and their motivations are complex, what do we know about it. So we simply ignore the spiral of poverty and debts many families live in, why should we bother to teach their children that it can work differently? Brilliant idea.

No, it does not necessarily follow that we should stand by and do nothing. However, if we want to create programs to re-educate the fat teenagers - whether through the state or through NGOs - we must understand the motivations for why people go to McDonalds in the first place. I am suggesting that your single-cause model - they go to McDonalds because of the social prestige attached to it - is too simplistic. If you work with that model, it is unlikely that you will change anything.

You also have to bear in mind that any reform necessarily has a backlash. Jamie Oliver's attempts to redesign British school dinners have been met in many quarters with the kind of satirical response that Trapy's Youtube video shows. British people will remember the videos of the sixty "Rotherman Mothers" at the gates of Rawmarsh Comprehensive, passing hot fish suppers through the railings to their children as an alternative to the new Jamie-Oliver-diet served up in the canteen.

The British Government is currently in the middle of a three-year $400 million program to make school dinners healthier and reach millions of new children. However, the children have voted with their feet: 250,000 children stopped taking school dinners last year, and 150,000 this year. The government is now 1 million children behind its targets. That is precisely the kind of counter-response that makes one question what went wrong with this obviously well-meaning government program.

[Car]

Everyone knows that McDonald's is dangerous, that coke is poison, how many articles have been written about it? Millions! But people still eat, still drink this ... and people will go there forever, just because: it's really fast and relatively cheap. This works especially in big cities where people are always in a hurry, well I think it's all obvious.

A lot of people know shockingly little about that and even more so about how you can eat in a healthier way. I also eat fast food and am far from being a "health freak", but too many don't know what they are doing and how they could change it, if they wanted to. You're free to eat what you want to, but you should know what you eat there.
Courses about food did indeed help many change their diet. It won't help those people who couldn't care less, but I do believe that some just don't know any better. It at least makes you think about it again.

[HerrFraeulein]

@ Zorba: So you think we just leave things as they are? To hell with health and everything, just let the kids go to McDonalds every day because they don't know any better? To hell with education, it's their own fault they know nothing about where food comes from, how it is produced, etc.? So we simply ignore that many teenagers are too fat? We simply ignore that many young children go to school malnourished and hungry every day? Yeah, just let them do that, it's their upbringing, and their motivations are complex, what do we know about it. So we simply ignore the spiral of poverty and debts many families live in, why should we bother to teach their children that it can work differently? Brilliant idea.

No, it does not necessarily follow that we should stand by and do nothing. However, if we want to create programs to re-educate the fat teenagers - whether through the state or through NGOs - we must understand the motivations for why people go to McDonalds in the first place.

That may be part of it, but it would seem to me you're overemphasising the "understanding" part here (perhaps even overempathising with the perpetrator, if you will, and rather underempathising with their victims ). Because, in sum, what you contend looks to me to be a mere condensation of that famous French aphorism "tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner". I mean, it's not like people who advocate the abolishment of factory farming don't understand that many people -like the ones you mentioned- may have other things on their minds than the lot of animals, or think that their implication in it means that they must be nailed to a cross in punishment. It just doesn't really do much for the animals to stop after reciting the relativistic mantra, is all.

You seem hold that, basically, a concern form animal welfare is, in a way, a luxury product, élitist, and rather bound up with a snobbish attitude. In many cases this may be so, but the same goes for all charitative activities (picture the typical well-to-do dainty ladies of class ever so busy to raise funds for the poor children in Africa, or the[often rich] philanthropists wailing over the thriftiness of the West when it comes to contributing to alleviate the general human condition elsewhere).

I would remark two things here:
1. your observation, the validity of which I don't contest, seems to hint more at the suspiciousness of the well-doers than it does to the misguidedness of the cause (if alleviating hunger in Africa is no moot cause) and
2. the mere comprehensibility of people's indifference -in this case to how their meat is procured- hardly entails its palatibility. To accept it in this case, simply because you can see where they're coming from, is to tolerate any act of cruelty (on humans or animals), provided you have sufficient imagination to understand why the perpetrator(s) did it.

And even if you wouldn't understand, why would that make you feel entitled to impose your sentiments on others, if you won't tolerate animal welfare advocates imposing theirs in turn?

Ahh, and just to avoid any misunderstandings here: I'm not actually of the believe that vegetarianism/veganism is going anywhere. In that sense it is like you said: the typical working class people (and more alarmingly still: even most "educated", wealthy people) are simply unable, from a combination of lack of time and lack of empathy, to feel, well, anything really for that which, or those who, don't directly and palpably concern them. What a world, what a world!

[Babelfish]

I eat meat almost every day. However, I do avoid some kinds of meat, produced almost always in an exceptionally cruel way - goose liver is enlarged by forced fattening, and "milk veal" is produced from calves held in cells so small that they can't even move, atrophying their muscles (and, sadly, countering the claim that ethical meat is better...). We also prefer to buy "freedom eggs" (ones laid by hens running around freely) whenever possible, I'm not sure other such "freedom" products are available easily in Israel.

The frustrating thing is that I can't completely protect this ethical stand. In most political/ethical debates moderation is obviously the preferred way, with extremists on either side easily disregarded as immoral or impractical. On this subject it seems that only "extremists" fare well I choose silently protest specific cruelty towards animals, although I do know that other animals brought up for food also live and die rather horribly, so if vegetarians ask me "why stop there?" - or "heavier" meat-eaters ask "why even start?" - I haven't much of an answer. The vegetarians on their side would be attacked by the vegans, who would correctly point out that milk and eggs (not to mention leather shoes...) are also produced most often through the suffering of animals. And again from the other side, even most meat-eaters won't support the abuse of animals just for the fun of it, although there doesn't seem to be any proper reasoning to abuse animals for tastier food but not for amusement (for those sickoes who are amused by it).

I guess we just each have our own line we don't cross... I suppose things could also be improved simply through legislation. Just like scientific experiments on animals are limited and usually need approval, their bringing up and slaughtering can be supervised to be, well, less inhumane...

[nighean-neonach]

@ Zorba: As I said, I work with children and teenagers on an almost everyday basis, and I've been watching some of those cooking education things and similar concepts in our town for a while. In my experience seemingly little things often have an amazing effect and it is not always necessary to make things overly complicated through all kinds of theories and ideologies. Many children just need some additional input besides what their families and friends can offer them, and as long as you don't do it in a finger-wagging moralising manner, you will get to them alright. Simply living your own way of life and answering their questions honestly and unpretentiously, that's often sufficient.

[DelBoy]

Boycotting it is one way to call for change.

It's one way, but I believe being an 'ethical meat eater' has a greater impact on the industry.

That's a valid argument, but I won't exactly agree. I once heard an argument that boycotting the industry would just cause meat-eaters to eat more, and the counter-argument was that this could only be the initial result and that if more people stopped eating meat, the industry itself would decline. In response, perhaps the industry would be forced to become less cruel, and then more meat-eaters would insist on the more 'ethical' meat, creating a spiral effect. So I won't minimize the importance of either boycotting or insisting upon ethical meat. Both are steps in the right direction, as far as I'm concerned.

Well, this wasn't what I was thinking of exactly - from a purely practical and economic point of view, vegetarians don't buy meat, and so don't have a 'vote', so to speak, in the meat production industry.
And this is going to sound a little heartless, but supposing everyone did become strict vegetarians, humans would have no reason to farm animals, which would not be good for the animals - I remember reading (but can't find a link now) that farm pigs have been bred in such a way that they are too big to breed naturally on their own. I can't see cows or other farm animals lasting too long without farms either. That brings up the question - is it better to keep a species of animal alive for the sole purpose of killing it for food, or to let it become extinct?

That is quite a stark view, but I am very much in favour of the best welfare for animals, and I'm not attacking vegetarianism at all!

[nighean-neonach]

That brings up the question - is it better to keep a species of animal alive for the sole purpose of killing it for food, or to let it become extinct?

That's an interesting aspect. Lots of traditional breeds of farm animals (as well as fruit and vegetables, by the way) have already become extinct because they weren't "efficient" enough. Look at old pictures of, say, a few hundred years ago. Pigs and cows looked different from what they look like today, more varied as well, there were lots of local breeds which had adapted to the specific environments they were living in. Nowadays they live in the same industrial conditions all over Europe, and lots of genetic material is just getting lost - very dangerous in case of epidemics and things like that.

[jaybee]

A lot of people tell me that my empathy towards animals is above the normal limit, which I don't really understand. It's hard not to care for a being that can't express it's pain to us when it clearly is the first step in relieving it? I mean I don't see why those chickens have to be put in a cage like that when they can at least be in a room that 'fits'. What kind of a farm puts chickens in a cage anyway?!
It really hurts to see things like this happening when there clearly is no need for it to be that way.
I don't get it when people say that they don't really care, and that they are just animals.. How is it okay for something to be in so much pain and discomfort? They live, just like we do. And anything that lives deserves to have a good life, not cramped up in a cage or anything else for that matter.
Poor chickens ='( who can they complain to?

[DelBoy]

I mean I don't see why those chickens have to be put in a cage like that when they can at least be in a room that 'fits'. What kind of a farm puts chickens in a cage anyway?!
It really hurts to see things like this happening when there clearly is no need for it to be that way.

The thing is, at the moment there really is a need for it (well, not a need, but a demand).
Farmers are trying to meet the demand for cheap and quick produce. By farming more ethically, they are really gambling their livelihood - it costs more and takes more time to do so, so they have to increase the price of their produce, and as you've read here, many people aren't happy with that or just can't afford it, and will go for the cheaper (and worse for animal welfare) option.

[BezierCurve]

Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I believe that one day people will "grow up" to treating animals better. Maybe not everywhere at once, maybe it will take another hundred years.

We seem to become more humane over the ages (comparing for example the general attitude towards mentally or physically challenged people - there was no economic reason for that, but it happened. Also women, who had been treated badly through ages (and, unfortunately, in some places still are) have now equal rights in most countries - eventhough it wasn't easy too achieve. So, maybe gradually we'll understand that causing unnecessary pain to other beings should be ashamed of. At leats for a race considering themselves most developed ones on Earth.

[Sarabi]

Oh, god... Just watched another video, this time about cows having their tracheas ripped out while they are fully conscious, then just dumped onto the floor, as well as having their necks sawed through with a hot blade while (I think) fully conscious. That one made me cry. Thanks, Kosher meat, for that. I once read a book about some people who came from a family of pig farmers in 19th century England (a contemporary novel), and even they treated their pigs humanely by killing them cleanly.

Well, this wasn't what I was thinking of exactly - from a purely practical and economic point of view, vegetarians don't buy meat, and so don't have a 'vote', so to speak, in the meat production industry.

Yeah, I see your logic, but do you think that boycotting is useless? I think Gandhi and the New England colonists disproved that. It's a matter of choice. If enough people became vegetarian for ethical reasons, or ethical meat eaters, then the industry will begin to take notice. Either way, I don't think the consumers alone can change the entire industry. There are going to have to be activists, people willing to fight for animal rights, just as there have been for women's suffrage and black civil rights and gay rights and so on.

And this is going to sound a little heartless, but supposing everyone did become strict vegetarians, humans would have no reason to farm animals, which would not be good for the animals - I remember reading (but can't find a link now) that farm pigs have been bred in such a way that they are too big to breed naturally on their own. I can't see cows or other farm animals lasting too long without farms either. That brings up the question - is it better to keep a species of animal alive for the sole purpose of killing it for food, or to let it become extinct?

Are you suggesting that the only pigs in existence are those who have been bred for pig farms?
Extinction does not concern me the way that torture does. I would rather die than be tortured for my entire life. Wouldn't you? Everyone who's born dies, but not everyone who is born lives. There are also chickens who have been bred to grow so fast that many of them grow too large to stand up, and many others have heart attacks. That their only "usefulness" is dying of torture is not a good reason to continue breeding them.

[loqu]

That brings up the question - is it better to keep a species of animal alive for the sole purpose of killing it for food, or to let it become extinct?

That's an interesting aspect. Lots of traditional breeds of farm animals (as well as fruit and vegetables, by the way) have already become extinct because they weren't "efficient" enough. Look at old pictures of, say, a few hundred years ago. Pigs and cows looked different from what they look like today, more varied as well, there were lots of local breeds which had adapted to the specific environments they were living in. Nowadays they live in the same industrial conditions all over Europe, and lots of genetic material is just getting lost - very dangerous in case of epidemics and things like that.

In Spain we have a race of pigs that must be raised living free in the country, and must be fed almost exclusively with acorn, according to law. The meat coming from that race of pigs is usually much more expensive, but a lot tastier and healthier (since its fat is similar to the one of the acorn). Don't know if you guys ever heard about Iberian pig or Iberian ham.

Of course we also have industrial pigs, or that's what I think.

[nighean-neonach]

acorn). Don't know if you guys ever heard about Iberian pig or Iberian ham.

In fact I have, because I've read some magazine articles about this topic (traditional breeds, etc.). It's nice that some things like that are still around. I also remember an article about a woman in northern Italy who collects traditional sorts of fruit trees. There is a small number of modern "efficient" varieties of apples, for example, which are grown and sold all over Europe, and actually their taste is rather boring. Hundreds of old local varieties have disappeared or are only found in random dilapidated farm yards.

[Steisi]

I've been involved in a vegetarianism thread before And I promise I'll do my best not to turn this thread into a repeat of it

Anyway, I voted All-around meat eater. In England we ate lots of all kinds of meat, although we never ate veal or foie gras, because my mum (rightly) thinks it's cruel (Wow, I can feel lots of counter arguments brewing there, please read to the end of my post ) and she won't eat duck. I don't understand her reasoning for it, but she just won't. Since I moved to Finland I mostly eat chicken. It's the cheapest kind of meat (3 thighs for 2 euros is pretty good) - if beef and pork were cheaper I'd eat them too. At university I usually take the vegetarian option because I don't always trust their meat I did try to be a vegetarian for a week and a half but (despite doing research on nutrition) I felt so bloody awful I gave it up.

I'm also not sure if it means I'm doing anything ethical, but in Finland most chicken you get is broiler chicken. I always try to buy 'proper' chicken in the hope that it's free range

I'm really interested in nighean-neonach's points. Perhaps it's my location but I really do find the price of organic stuff to skyrocket over the price of everything else. Do you include meat in your diet? If so, how? I'm used to preparing my own food from relatively healthy stuff, so that's not a problem, but I'm just not sure how to fit it in my budget, which i nearly always go over when it comes to food. I do make a point of buying free range eggs though. I'd rather go without eggs than buy battery ones. And if I can, I'll buy free range chickens, too. It's just that in Finland afaik there's not much of an option. Perhaps I should go to a specialist butcher (and not pay the rent... )

As for Macdonalds, I've only eaten it about 6 times in my entire life and each time it's made me feel sick to my stomach. The only reason I went the last 5 times is probably for the culture experience a la Zorba My mum never took me there. Here I do agree with her reasoning: it's crap. And especially during the BSE scare it was a no-go.

One thing that bugs me is when I go to the loo in uni I'm more often than not confronted by a rotting pig. Or a decaying chicken. Both urge me to eat vegetarian or vegan diets anyway. This annoys me - just because I eat meat doesn't mean I wish for the torture of these animals. Since I've tried vegetarianism and obviously don't get on with it, I'll settle with free-range farming and hopefully the most humane killing method possible. I wish food products had a more in-depth legend, like if the animal was killed humanely, if it's free range, if it's kosher, halaal etc.. Then I'd be able to make better choices

[Varislintu]

Yes! Meat products should have a similar marking system as eggs about their production method.

[loqu]

I guess soon we'll have it, if it isn't on the way yet. You know, the EU always bothers about issuing new ruling to make labels have more and more information, soon we'll have booklets with each product.

Not that I'm against any of these things like those aggressively anti-EU folks, in fact I think it's positive, but too much information can confuse the customer.

[Tenebrarum]

I think my diet is pretty balanced, unless you take aquatic foods into account because I'm not keen on them.

One word, however: rice. I don't think Westerners can truly comprehend this

Philosophically speaking, I'd like to be a lacto-ovo vegetarian.

Should I vote "Other"?