If Meat is Murder--So is Vegan
I grow weary of PETA's antics. Now, they are attacking actress Jessica Simpson for wearing a T-shirt that read, "Real Girls Eat Meat." From the story:
Yeah? Well, so is going vegan. PETA won't tell you this, but I will: their vegan lifestyles also come at the expense of the deaths of countless animals. You see, mechanized plant farming for wheat, soy, and other vegan staples slaughters hundreds of millions of mice, rabbits, gophers, snakes, and other field animals. And then there is the chemical annihilation of rats and mice in silos and other grain and vegetable storage facilities. One study I found recounted how if all arable acreage in the USA were put to supporting veganism, 1.2 billion mice would be killed each year.Alistair Currie, a spokesman for Peta, said: "Jessica Simpson might have a right to wear what she wants, but she doesn't have a right to eat what she wants--eating meat is about suffering and death.
This is the way of the world: No matter what diet you choose to follow from steak 7 days a week to vegan tofu specials, animals died that you might eat. If meat is murder, so is vegan. That's the way it is and everything to the contrary is just noise.
I wrote a 1000-word piece on this today that goes into much more detail. (Yes, I know it's Sunday! Just be glad your not Secondhand Smokette.) If and when it comes out, I'll link it here. Oh, and in my book research I also just found out some interesting truths about fur trapping you also don't read in PETA literature. Stay tuned.
Labels: Vegan is murder. Animal Rights.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 10:54 PM
41 Comments
41 Comments:
On a grim note: I got to see this myself, less than a week ago-- mother deer have a habit of leaving fawns in the nice, deep, even grass of fields. And it's harvesting time.
I rode with my mother (tight fit to have two full grown women in a cab) for a few hours and was on fawn patrol-- when I saw the grass moving funny, I yelled and we stopped, then I went and chased the poor little thing until it was out of danger. Both mom and dad will recruit neighborhood kids to do this, when they can.
Only missed one. Poor thing never knew what happened-- we would've heard that freakish scream. (The ones I chased out of the grass sure used it.)
It tears you apart, and I've known my mother-- a BS in animal husbandry, has operated on countless animals, etc-- to come close to tears from the sheer stupidity of deer.
The year that a fawn ran away, then ran *straight back into the blades* nearly did her in.
My dad is even more animal oriented...I've often wondered if that's why mom does the cutting, and dad the bailing....
I know you are serious about the subject,Wesley! It did ,however, give me cause to smile....the comment about Smokette....and the entire article points out how silly ...may I say stupid...the reasoning of the PETA folk is.
While it is true that that any diet involves some harm to non-human life, it seems increasingly clear that meat-eating worsens the situation. The study cited by Smith is by Steven Davis, who does not defend current methods of meat production but recommends meat from grass-fed animals. Even so, his argument for grass-raised meat is highly dubious, as Gaverick Matheny has shown:
http://www.jgmatheny.org/matheny%202003.pdf
Jan: Thanks. I am very serious about this and extremely alarmed for the future. Bur remember, just because one is serious, doesn't mean we should lose our sense of humor. Glad you got a chuckle.
Aeolus: The issue isn't a utilitarian comparision between which type of diet kills the most animals. The point is, the meme that meat is murder but vegan is, in contrast, "cruelty free" because it doesn't kill animals is specious, dishonest, and disengenuous. Moreover, many of the field animals die far more horribly than food animals do in slaughter houses--as Foxfier illustrated earlier.
This is a really good point, and one I'd never have thought of, being a city girl by origin myself. And Foxfier's story is pretty striking. I'm thinking of a blog post..."Be a Vegan, Kill Bambi."
Folks would miss the point, Mz. McGrew--although feel free to quote me, anyways.
It'll just be another "evil ranchers, we need more organic growers" thing. (even though the field I was on was zero pesticide, zero fertilizer)
foxfier's first post is interesting. Clearly it is possible to clear fields in advance of harvesting. The deer are hardly stupid seeking out cover for their young.
But this is the point, vegans are motivated to drastically reduce or eliminate causing death in food production. By definition, flesh eaters are not motivated to not kill while producing food.
A vegan society would be motivated and be happy to fund ways of producing plant foods that cause as little disturbance to nonhuman animals as possible. There is no reason to assume that production methodology will remain the same. What is needed is a mass of vegans acting as a political movement to bring about necessary changes.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Furthermore, many animals living in the fields are killed when the plants are harvested. However, we must feed the animals we eat, and, in fact, feed them on average 10 times as much plant matter as we would eat ourselves if we just ate the plants. So we have to grow 10 times as much plant matter AND THEREFORE KILL 10 TIMES AS MANY ANIMALS in order to eat animals over plants. And this is without taking into account the number of animals being fed these plants...
So, while eating solely plants does often result in the death of animals, eating animals will just as often require a far larger number of animals killed in the process.
So, if we are trying to minimize our harm, eating plants wins out.
Point of vegan culture: avoid killing animals.
Result of vegan culture: animals die, more horribly than those killed for food directly.
Furthermore, many animals living in the fields are killed when the plants are harvested. However, we must feed the animals we eat, and, in fact, feed them on average 10 times as much plant matter as we would eat ourselves if we just ate the plants. So we have to grow 10 times as much plant matter AND THEREFORE KILL 10 TIMES AS MANY ANIMALS in order to eat animals over plants.
Two points:
Most food animals graze-- thus, eating ten times as much plant matter does not mean ten times as much was harvested. (Let's ignore that you get more than one meal out of a cow, for the sake of being short. Also ignoring any proof of assertions, etc.)
Vegans are the ones trying to avoid animal deaths; it is nonsensical to apply the motivation of one group to the group diametrically opposed, so the only relevant deaths are the ones that are caused in the pursuit of the vegan lifestyles.
This sounds more and more like the Animal Rights folks whose actions result in the deaths of many animals "for the cause."
Roger Yates: Welcome to SHS.
Vegan motives are not the point. Animal rights activists charge falsely that meat is murder and veganism is cruelty free. Yet the animals killed in mechanized plant farming die far more agonizing deaths than beef do in slaughter houses.
Doing away with mechanized farming would reduce crop yields and raise prices.
So, you can't eat without killing animals no matter what your diet.
I think this matter profoundly undercuts the professed moral superiority of veganism, and transforms it into a mere utilitarian comparison of the carnage.
If meat is murder, so is vegan. That's the way it is and everything to the contrary is just noise. - Wesley
Link -Is this the noise you're referring to Wesley
Link - more inhumane treatment of cattle
more Link - a day at the slaughterhouse
I think I'd rather take my chances in a field.
Most food animals graze - foxflier
Thats completely FALSE!
How about some edumacation for your ignorance about factory farming.
Factory Farming
Nope , No grazing food here either
Oh and these are the less squeamish videos, to get the real nasty stuff you'll have to login to your account and verify your old enough.
Now there are certainly outlets where you can get free range animals that did graze, werent fed a steady diet of hormones and Anti-Biotics, but this is a minority of food outlets. You have to look for it at organic food stores and some butchers and it will cost more. If I purchase meat, these are the sources I seek.
So it seems the like the premise that human are so exceptional that we are to be the stewards of all other species has failed in this instance. Its disturbing to see people rally against the ethical treatment of animals.
Mr. Smith - thanks for the welcome.
You write: "Vegan motives are not the point. Animal rights activists charge falsely that meat is murder and veganism is cruelty free. Yet the animals killed in mechanized plant farming die far more agonizing deaths than beef do in slaughter houses."
The motivation of vegans are surely relevant in terms of their vision of a future world of less harm. Clearly veganism is not "cruelty-free", which tends to be the concern of animal welfarists rather than animal rightists. To move toward a future with fewer rights violations, a mass veganism is required to bring about production alterations.
I think you may be very wide of the mark in relation to your claim about agonised deaths. We are comparing free-living animals with others whose entire lives have been controlled and shaped for human advantage. Without minimising what it must be like to be caught in a harvester, we must compare that with being deliberately breed (often with AI), often mutilated, fattened, transported and slaughtered. Of course the vegan is motivated to end all this harm, including that caused by harvesters.
You write: "Doing away with mechanized farming would reduce crop yields and raise prices." It is probably fair to say that extensive systems of production could have these effects. A vegan society would be happy to fund it.
You write: "So, you can't eat without killing animals no matter what your diet." I would agree with that. To borrow a phrase, there is no pure land.
You write: "I think this matter profoundly undercuts the professed moral superiority of veganism, and transforms it into a mere utilitarian comparison of the carnage." I would certainly caution vegans about making such superiority claims if they do. I agree with you that a deal of reflexivity on the part of vegans would be good.
Swan-
you really need to educate yourself with facts, not propaganda.
You know, facts, those things that can be written and sourced, not produced by anyone and posted you youtube?
How about this (rather low quality) slide show?
http://www.iowabeefcenter.org/Presentations/SHOUSE/sld001.htm
I refuse to waste any more time with someone too ignorant to realize that videos are not facts.
Roger: Good comment. My post was narrowly focused, and you agree with the point I was making.
That doesn't settle some of the other issues involving the raising of food animals. But I think the point I made is worth making. e.g. that there is no free lunch, so to speak.
Thanks and I hope you will hang around and contribute some more to SHS.
I refuse to waste any more time with someone too ignorant to realize that videos are not facts.
Yeah I think they made that up on a hollywood studio set or something. LOL - you're willfully blind
It is your inability to accept reality that factory farming is cruel and inhumane to animals, environmentally damaging, bad for working class farmers, good for corporate profits, bad for our health and the myriad of other considerations that have resulted from corporate farming and the demise of the family farmer. Farming has been in demise since big business took it over in the 50s. The way animals are treated today compared to 50 years ago is a catastrophe. There is nothing exceptional in this human behavior unless its exceptionally bad.
Loss of Family Farms
Family farms are being squeezed out of business by their inability to raise the capital to compete with huge factory farms. Traditional farming is labor intensive, but factory farming is capital intensive.
The increase in factory farms has led to a decrease in the price independent farmers get for their animals, forcing thousands out of business. The number of U.S. farmers dropped by 300,000 between 1979 and 1998.
During a recent 15-year period, hog farms in the U.S. decreased from 600,000 to 157,000, while the number of hogs sold increased. Consolidation has resulted in just 3 percent of U.S. hog farms producing more than 50 percent of the hogs. Similarly, 2 percent of cattle feed operations account for more than 40 percent of the nation’s cattle. In the poultry industry, the number of “broiler” chicken farms declined by 35 percent between 1969 and 1992, while the number of birds raised and slaughtered increased nearly three-fold.
The demise of small farms in the U.S. has been helped along by actions of the federal government. Congress, influenced by strong lobbying groups, has consistently passed federal farm programs benefiting the large agricultural corporations. According to the Center for Public Integrity, between 1987 and 1996, the food industry made campaign contributions of more than $41 million to federal lawmakers.
There are virtually no federal laws that protect farm animals from even the most harsh and brutal treatment as long as it takes place in the name of production and profit. The federal Animal Welfare Act, which regulates the treatment of animals for commercial purposes, does not apply to farm animals unless they are being used in research or for exhibition.
In 1954, American farmers used about half a million pounds of antibiotics a year in raising food animals. Today, about half of the 50 million pounds of antibiotics produced in the U.S. each year is used for animals, 80 percent of which is poured directly into feed to make animals grow faster. Among the most commonly used antibiotics are penicillin and tetracycline. The squandering of these important drugs to increase the profits of factory farms is wreaking havoc for physicians in the treatment of human illness.
Widespread overuse of antibiotics is resulting in the evolution of new strains of virulent bacteria whose resistance to antibiotics poses a great threat to human health. Doctors are now reporting that, due to their uncontrolled use on factory farms, these formerly life-saving drugs are often rendered useless in combating human disease.
Conditions on factory farms and in slaughterhouses are also responsible for a large proportion of food-borne illnesses reported in the U.S. each year. Officials at the USDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have referred to the current situation with food-related disease as an “epidemic.”
Most food-related diseases are caused by the contamination of food, milk, or water with animal fecal material.
Jun 20, 2008 Calif. worker pleads in slaughterhouse abuse case
Of the 170 million acres of field corn (NOT sweet corn) and soybeans we grow, only 9% actually enters the food supply directly. The overwhelming majority of these crops are used for livestock feed, renewable fuel, or exports.
We've gone from a system where a family farm might have 50-100 hogs and a few chicken coops, to gigantic farms with up to 50,000 pigs or 10 million chickens.
The current industrial farm animal production (IFAP) system often poses unacceptable risks to public health, the environment and the welfare of the animals themselves, according to an extensive 2½-year examination conducted by the Pew Commission
In Iowa, the average number of hogs per farm increased from 250 to 1,430 between 1980 and 2000.
Most beef cattle spend the last few months of their lives at feedlots, crowded by the thousands into dusty, manure-laden holding pens. The air is thick with harmful bacteria and particulate matter, and the animals are at a constant risk for respiratory disease. Feedlot cattle are routinely implanted with growth-promoting hormones, and they are fed unnaturally rich diets designed to fatten them quickly and profitably.
A standard beef slaughterhouse kills 250 cattle every hour. The high speed of the assembly line makes it increasingly difficult to treat animals with any semblance of humaneness. A Meat & Poultry article states, "Good handling is extremely difficult if equipment is 'maxed out' all the time. It is impossible to have a good attitude toward cattle if employees have to constantly overexert themselves, and thus transfer all that stress right down to the animals, just to keep up with the line."
Prior to being hung up by their back legs and bled to death, cattle are supposed to be rendered unconscious, as stipulated by the federal Humane Slaughter Act. This 'stunning' is usually done by a mechanical blow to the head. However, the procedure is terribly imprecise, and inadequate stunning is inevitable. As a result, conscious animals are often hung upside down, kicking and struggling, while a slaughterhouse worker makes another attempt to render them unconscious. Eventually, the animals will be "stuck" in the throat with a knife, and blood will gush from their bodies whether or not they are unconscious.
This is detailed in an April 2001 Washington Post article, which describes typical slaughterplant conditions:
The cattle were supposed to be dead before they got to Moreno. But too often they weren't.
They blink. They make noises, he said softly. The head moves, the eyes are wide and looking around. Still Moreno would cut. On bad days, he says, dozens of animals reached his station clearly alive and conscious. Some would survive as far as the tail cutter, the belly ripper, the hide puller. They die, said Moreno, piece by piece...
"In plants all over the United States, this happens on a daily basis," said Lester Friedlander, a veterinarian and formerly chief government inspector at a Pennsylvania hamburger plant. "I've seen it happen. And I've talked to other veterinarians. They feel it's out of control."
The U.S. Department of Agriculture oversees the treatment of animals in meat plants, but enforcement of the law varies dramatically. While a few plants have been forced to halt production for a few hours because of alleged animal cruelty, such sanctions are rare.
Whats for lunch?
Um...yeah, personal experience highly trumps your youtube links, and your wall of text that opens with ad homen does nothing to change that.
Um...yeah, personal experience highly trumps your youtube links, and your wall of text that opens with ad homen does nothing to change that.
Can you be more specific, does your generalizing have a purpose?
Which specific points do you refute?
Um...yeah, personal experience highly trumps your youtube links
The fact that you can watch those animals being tortured and then act as if it doesn't exist speaks for itself.
Our family owns 20 acres, and my folks still bale hay every year. Actually they started leasing it many years back.
I've seen over a dozen deer running around this week alone. Mostly young bucks on the prowl, and yeah it is a sad thing when they get hit by cars, my dad has killed several, though we've never watched one run into the spinning blades of a tractor implement. Still that is no where near the horrible conscience treatment that humans apply to factory farmed animals, no matter how hard you try to rationalize it.
We garden about 1/4 acre and grow all sorts of wonderful veggies that the deer like to eat, so we built a fence and developed a rainwater irragation system so we dont have to water as much, its wonderful to cook your food after you just picked it, the freshest tastiest nourishment ever!
You should drop the superiority complex foxfier, don't assume that other people have less experience and knowledge than you.
Dark Swan, the fact that you feel the need to appeal to emotion when people do not accept your videos as the las word says far more.
Young bucks are adults; they are not fawns left in the tall grass of the field.
If you actually believe that standard slaughter techniques are worse than going through this
http://www.consignall.ca/members/204901376/reg_mass_swather3.jpg
then I can't help you.
It's hard not to sound "superior" to someone who thinks that bucks run into swathers and that a knock in the head is worse than being shredded.
"Mostly young bucks on the prowl, and yeah it is a sad thing when they get hit by cars, ... though we've never watched one run into the spinning blades of a tractor implement."
It's hard not to sound "superior" to someone who thinks that bucks run into swathers - foxfier
foxfier - who asserted bucks run into windrowers?
You need to at least come close to correlating statements, without falsely creating then asserting them in a misguided manner.
--------------------------------
Instead try basic logical talking points that dispute any of the facts I've stated. take your pick...
The number of U.S. farmers dropped by 300,000 between 1979 and 1998.
factory farming is cruel and inhumane to animals, environmentally damaging, bad for working class farmers, good for corporate profits, bad for our health
3 percent of U.S. hog farms producing more than 50 percent of the hogs. Similarly, 2 percent of cattle feed operations account for more than 40 percent of the nation’s cattle. In the poultry industry, the number of “broiler” chicken farms declined by 35 percent between 1969 and 1992, while the number of birds raised and slaughtered increased nearly three-fold.
The demise of small farms in the U.S. has been helped along by actions of the federal government.
There are virtually no federal laws that protect farm animals from even the most harsh and brutal treatment as long as it takes place in the name of production and profit.
half of the 50 million pounds of antibiotics produced in the U.S. each year is used for animals, 80 percent of which is poured directly into feed to make animals grow faster.
Widespread overuse of antibiotics is resulting in the evolution of new strains of virulent bacteria whose resistance to antibiotics poses a great threat to human health.
I think Roger said it well earlier stating "Without minimising what it must be like to be caught in a harvester, we must compare that with being deliberately breed (often with AI), often mutilated, fattened, transported and slaughtered."
This comment has been removed by the author.
EDIT: Bah, bad phrasing, AN acre is a bit less than a football field.
Original below:
Foxfier - who asserted bucks run into windrowers?
and
You need to at least come close to correlating statements, without falsely creating then asserting them in a misguided manner.
There's this earth-thing called "humor."
When someone reads "fawns lay down in the hay field and get cut up, and once in 50 some years of field work a baby even ran back into the blades" and someone else says "mostly young bucks on the prowl, and yeah it is a sad thing when they get hit by cars, my dad has killed several, though we've never watched one run into the spinning blades of a tractor implement" the natural response is to tease the person who went from a five pound animal to a 140+ pound animal.
By the way, 20 acres isn't much-- it's less than a football field, and the smallest field on my folks harvest is roughly six football fields.
Instead try basic logical talking points that dispute any of the facts I've stated. take your pick...
For starters, links would be nice.
Links to actual information with checkable sources, not youtube videos. (I've seen Lego Darth conducting the imperial march on you tube--I don't use that as proof of plastic life.)
There's this earth-thing called "humor."
very well, its easy to miss humor over the interweb tubes.
"For starters, links would be nice."
Well I linked to half a dozen a few posts ago, so here is one from the Pew Foundation
Pew Commission Says Industrial Scale Farm Animal Production Poses “Unacceptable” Risks to Public
Health, Environment
"The current industrial farm animal production (IFAP) system often poses unacceptable risks to public health, the environment and the welfare of the animals themselves, according to an extensive 2½-year examination conducted by the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production
(PCIFAP), in a study released today."
specifically dealing with Animal treatment the report states:
"IFAP methods for raising food animals have generated concern and debate over just what constitutes a
reasonable life for animals and what kind of quality of life we owe the animals in our care. It is an ethical
dilemma that transcends objective scientific measures, and incorporates value-based concerns. Physical health
as measured by absence of some diseases or predation, for example, may be enhanced through confinement
since the animals may not be exposed to certain infectious agents or sources of injury that would be
encountered if the animals were raised outside of confinement. It is clear, however, that good animal welfare
can no longer be assumed based only on the absence of disease or productivity outcomes. Intensive
confinement (e.g. gestation crates for swine, battery cages for laying hens) often so severely restricts
movement and natural behaviors, such as the ability to walk or lie on natural materials, having enough floor
space to move with some freedom, and rooting for pigs, that it increases the likelihood that the animals suffer
severe distress."
Swab- you linked a letter to the editor, a prosecution of a wrongdoer, two "cannot be founds" from the Salt Lake Trib, an Aussie software company (?????), and *farm sanctuary*.
May as well ask me to bow to links to PETA and ELF.
At long last, you link to a primary source in NCIFAP.
However....Googling "National Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production" lets me find this:
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/pressrelease_detail.cfm?release=173
http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/dec06/061201l.asp
Kay Johnson, executive vice president for the Animal Agriculture Alliance, said that the group has some concerns about the commission. Based in Arlington, Va., the alliance provides a united voice for those involved in the animal agriculture and food industries in communicating science-based information to consumers and the media.
"Our concern is that there is a lot of potential for bias in the report based on the makeup of the commission," Johnson said, "because we see that the commission has a dearth of experts in the field of animal agriculture."
And that's just a few seconds of googling.
You assert the Pew Foundation is not a reputable source for consumers information and ethics? LOL..
This is another one of your intertube jokes right? If not, educate yourself on their history.
You say Kay Johnson from the AAA alleged unfounded bias against the NCIFAP, Who is the AAA?
Oh, they are actually a lobbyist group for the Pork Industry, and other ag/rx interests in Washington DC. Stellar! They just got into it with the Humane Society also. Great non biased source there.
HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle to responded to Kay and the AAA by saying:
"Agribusiness interests don't want Americans to examine how badly pigs, chickens, and other animals are mistreated on industrial animal factories," notes Pacelle. "They are resorting to distraction and deception to keep the focus off their practices, and we hope the media will be discerning and not fall for their cheap stunts."
So now its the Pew Foundation and the Humane Society calling out the Ag lobbyists (AAA) in DC because the corporate farming profits are being brought to justice by laws that will hold their exports to the same humane treatment of animals as imports!!
"And that's just a few seconds of googling."
It Shows foxfier, your lack of credibility that is.
Your claim of discredit to the Pew Foundation at consumerfreedom.com posts ANTI PETA headlines all over like "PETA kills animals" Connecting to anti PETA sites, both run by the same server.
How exactly is yelling PETA KILLS ANIMALS!!!! enhancing consumers' freedom of choice, much less discrediting The Pew Foundation?
So in the face of shrinking number of farms you defend mass industrial farming methods that turn animals into a commodities to maximize profit margins at the expense of humane treatment. Not very exceptional of you.
2nd rate propaganda your dishing foxfier.
You might want to educate yourself on the makeup of the panel before you try to say there wasn't a bias just because the Pew put in some cash.
An animal rights activist, a vegetarian cookbook author, three people who make their money by producing "non industrial" foods.... And not a single person from the industry being investigated. And the organization that formed the group is already hosting a "meatless Monday" movement.
I am fully aware of what the Pew Trust is-- who cares? (By the way, their website is http://www.pewtrusts.org --the one you linked is a subset that had nothing to do with NCIFAP.)
Just because they're paying the bill doesn't mean that their reputation should outweigh the known bias of of those actually IN the panel. If you want to get into institutional reputation, why don't you also point out that John Hopkin U School of Public Health has equal billing?
Or how about the American Vet. Medicine Association having doubts about the makeup of the panel? They might have a bit of knowledge about the topic.
The AAA is not a "pork industry" advocate--I even included exactly what they were with the quote. I thought it would be pretty clear that raising pork is included in "animal agriculture and food industries."
I am also horrified that AAA doesn't have a sense of humor. Guess that blows my plan to hire them as entertainment, once they're done representing the folks who put food on the table. /sarcasm
Uh... PETA does kill animals.
http://deceiver.com/2008/01/21/peta-kills-animals/
One of those nit-picky facts I keep asking for; the link above explains why telling people that the folks in PETA are killing animals instead of placing or caring for them is, y'know, consumer information.
Your claim of discredit to the Pew Foundation....
Who said I want to discredit the Pew Foundation? I'm pointing out that a single panel that the Pew gave a grant was tilted to a specific outcome, and that several groups have outlined exactly why. I even made it clear that one person I linked represents the interests of the side the panel was tilted *against.*
So in the face of shrinking number of farms you defend mass industrial farming methods that turn animals into a commodities to maximize profit margins at the expense of humane treatment.
*snort* I'd like to meet this other Foxfier you keep arguing with.
Besides the fact that advances in technology mean that fewer folks HAVE to farm to feed themselves so the number is going down, coupled with fewer children who want to take over family farms and some legal hurdles for those who do, you seem to be a bit loose on the simple reality that food animals ARE a commodity.
They are bought, sold and processed. That you find that to be something that even needs defending is a bit startling.
Now, as to the animals being mistreated-- nobody here is defending actual abuse, least of all the people who lose value because mistreated animals will not do as well. Some of the things you consider abuse, though, ain't. (Feed lots? Come on, really? Or ONLY 90% of pigs being in a pen for two months of their lives? How about the research that found that free range chickens have higher stress than those with enclosed coops? Or "gestation crates"--AKA, farrowing stalls, those things that keep the mother pig from crushing her piglets. Never understood how that was a BAD thing.)
If animals do indeed die while grain is being cultivated (sad "collateral damage"), wouldn't those animals still die because we're cultivating the grain to feed livestock with? Then both the mice AND the pigs, cows, chickens, etc., would die. Furthermore, we'd need less grain if we were using it to feed people rather than overfeed animals for the slaughter. It still seems that a vegan diet would bring less animal death, and they could work on ways to avoid running over field mice with their equipment.
The AAA is not a "pork industry" advocate
Wrong again Foxflier, they are a lobbyist group for Industrial Farming interests. Quit letting the facts elude you.
The Animal Agriculture Alliance (Alliance) is a non-profit organization that organizes, coordinates and promotes the interests of some of the largest corporations and trade associations in the business of animal livestock, animal drugs, genetically engineered foods and crops and other related issues.
Uh... PETA does kill animals.
really foxfier, your gonna cling to part of an unscrupulous disinformation campaign by Center for Consumer Freedom
The deceitfully-named Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), a front group for Philip Morris, Outback Steakhouse, KFC, cattle ranchers, and other animal exploiters who kill millions of animals every year, not out of compassion, but out of greed. These companies are worried about the strides that PETA is making that are changing their industries and compelling them to take animal welfare concerns seriously, so—since they can’t argue with us on the facts of the animal abuse they fund—they hope to scare people away from caring about animals by spending millions on smear ads, mailings and Web sites like this. To learn more about CCF—which USA Today recently opined should rename its Web site "FatforProfit.com"—please see the following Web sites:
American Chronicle.com
"Simply put, the Center For Consumer Freedom is a front group for the restaurant, junk-food, alcohol and tobacco industries, and they regularly run elaborate media campaigns opposing the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates, animal rights and environmental groups. Founded in 1995 as the Guest Choice Network with a grant from the tobacco company, Philip Morris, the misnamed Center for Consumer Freedom has never strayed far from its roots."
Consumer Deception.com
The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit corporation run by lobbyist Richard Berman through his Washington, D.C.-based for-profit public relations company, Berman & Co. The Center for Consumer Freedom, formerly known as the Guest Choice Network, was set up by Berman with a $600,000 “donation” from tobacco company Philip Morris.
Richard Berman is an influence peddler. He has worked out a scheme to funnel charitable donations from wealthy corporations into his own pocket. In exchange, he provides a flurry of disinformation, flawed studies, op-ed pieces, letters to the editor, and trade-industry articles, as well as access to his high-level government contacts, who are servants of the industries he represents.
CitizensForEthics.org
Tax exempt organizations must have a charitable purpose. But GCN and CCF really just lobby on behalf of food producers, the restaurant industry and the tobacco industry. Documents that became public as a result of the global tobacco litigation settlement show that Philip Morris was once of the largest contributors to GCN and CCF.
prospect.org
The organization PR Watch, relying on an internal whistle-blower, has posted a list of the center's backers on its Web site. Among them: meat giants (Tyson Foods and Perdue Farms), soft-drink manufacturers (Coca-Cola), and fast food chains (White Castle, Outback Steakhouse). A center spokesman would only say that the list is "loaded with inaccuracies," but wouldn't say how.
we'd need less grain if we were using it to feed people rather than overfeed animals for the slaughter. It still seems that a vegan diet would bring less animal death, and they could work on ways to avoid running over field mice with their equipment.
Well said bmmg39
Bmmg3-
depends on how the fields are being used.
However, for the point that vegan lifestyles will still result in animal death, it doesn't matter.
Swan-
I'm tired of wasting my time on you, so this is my last reply.
I am confident that a neutral reader will see the exchange and have sufficient information to come to an informed decision, which is the only reason I replied-- I already remembered that you're an ideologue with a tendency to make his own facts and a habit of misquoting.
You may not agree that they think euthanizing is more humane than letting sick animals rot in cages, but the sad fact is that their are many thousands of animals that will not be given away in shelters. PETA strongly works to minimize the number of pets euthanized every year.
PETA does humanely euthanize animals, not out of motive for profits as the people you support in the meat industries. Their attempts to smear the reputation of PETA by twisting the context that animals are put down to meet the meat industries political ends is pure propaganda being regurgitated by you based off misinformation spread by meat producers and their lobbyists.
Besides the fact that advances in technology mean that fewer folks HAVE to farm to feed themselves so the number is going down, coupled with fewer children who want to take over family farms
Industrial farming makes family farmers a diminishing need. Family farms are being squeezed out of business by the economies of scale. 10 percent of the farms produce 75% of the food and continue to reduce the number of family farms each year.
Kids don't go into farming because they see their parents work their fingers to the bone their entire lives and have nothing but increasing costs and debt to show for it. But hey you keep supporting that mega corporate farming model that doesn't think it needs regulation from ethical agencies on how they treat animals.
Heck, you cant even admit a video of a cow being tortured is real. and that is something that hit you straight between the eyeballs. I shouldn't expect you come to grips with a more sophisticated campaign of manipulation attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of the American consumer in order to maximize corporate profits at the expense of humane animal treatment.
you linked a letter to the editor, a prosecution of a wrongdoer,...May as well ask me to bow to links to PETA
Oh so when the Humane Society captures a video and its posted on youtube, then I link to the article about the prosecution of the man on the youtube video committing inhumane acts against cattle with a forklift you refuse to acknowledge it exists.
Well in fact today the man who was prosectued in the case now says its his bosses that are responsible Ex-Chino Slaughterhouse Worker Says Bosses Should Go To Jail
"Ugarte, who also worked at the plant, said the sick cows were moved only when the federal meat inspector and veterinarian were out of sight. Ugarte told KNBC that Navarro said he was ignored when he notified plant management of the abundance of sick cows that were moved through the plant on a regular basis."
If the Ag industry oversight is as willfully blind to animal abuse as you are, then its no surprise that the HSUS has to smuggle in cameras to capture the candid practices of the factory farming industry.
the fact that you feel the need to appeal to emotion when people do not accept your videos as the las word says far more.
Oh, well in that case, one last time
here's a link to the long version of the story, but hey I guess if you can find it on youtube its not real huh, oh wait, yes it IS real animal abuse happening in our factory farms! Dont fall for Factory Farming Propoganda!
Oops wrong last link in previous post to Humane Society youtube video that foxfier refuses to acknowledge, this is it:
Animail HSUS candid filming of downer cow abuse
dark Swan, while I agree with you that the small family farm with a few of several types of livestock has met its demise in favour of large, specialised units of a single species, your reasoning for this is totally off the wall.
Farming is tough work. both physically and mentally, and farmers are the least appreciated people. Only those dedicated to their lifestyle can endure it.
Ever since the industrial revolution, people have migrated from the land to the city, for a chance of higher wages and easier work. Most of our farmers are nearing retirement age. Few will pass the farm on to their children. So what will happen to the farm? If it is close to an urban centre it may be bought for building land, in a rural area the chances are it will be bought by a neighbour or maybe some large agricultural business.
Agribusiness has taken over small farms to fill a need, not out of greed.
Foxfier, keep watching for those deer, you are doing an excellent job. Well done.
Thank you.
You're right about the work, as well--although, there is a lawyer's son that my folks are working with that has some potential....
It's a shame, because I can't think of any way I would have rather grown up--lack of vacations and all.
dark Swan, while I agree with you that the small family farm with a few of several types of livestock has met its demise in favour of large, specialised units of a single species, your reasoning for this is totally off the wall.
An Animal Life, what do you think is off the wall, and what are your reasons for agreeing with me??
Here is what I said about small factory farms being sqeezed out..
Family farms are being squeezed out of business by their inability to raise the capital to compete with huge factory farms. Traditional farming is labor intensive, but factory farming is capital intensive.
Industrial farming makes family farmers a diminishing need. Family farms are being squeezed out of business by the economies of scale. 10 percent of the farms produce 75% of the food and continue to reduce the number of family farms each year.
Kids don't go into farming because they see their parents work their fingers to the bone their entire lives and have nothing but increasing costs and debt to show for it.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home