What's new
By:

Cruelty in factory farming

I think the root of this goes back to my Reagan thread. We are so consumed with the bottom line, that we are willing to screw over our employees, our fellow americans, and our food to save a buck.

How can a smaller farm compete with a bigger corp, unless they do things like this?

When did the corps get so big? Was it before Reagan, have they always been this way, or has all the deregulation encouraged this?

Are we willing to make the sacrifices to fix this? Are we willing to have a $5 McDouble instead of $1?

Why do we spend so much time trying to hide things instead of fix them (the Ag-Gag laws)?

I think the way to fix this is to figure out where we went wrong and killed small business and try to resurrect that.
 
When talking about food prices keep in mind that poor people are affected by rising food cost WAY WAY more than even low or low-middle income people. We are paying less for food now then at any point in human history. Seems like a good thing on the balance.

That doesn't mean I'm indifferent to being cruel to animals. Gutting a fish is about as much as I can handle. No way I could clean a deer or work in a slaughterhouse.

Credentials:
Franklin Elementary School "Kindness to Animals" award winner, 5th grade.
 
I love the ridiculousness of this article. It talks about how they tried to pass a measure in Democrat controlled California, but it was the Republicans who stopped it. It's that type of garbage that makes you lose credibility, undermines your cause and doesn't allow us to actually do anything.

This starts out well, and I think they have good intentions, but then it just turns into another sensationalized article throwing out stereotypes to get people all riled up. Did Thriller write this?

It's too bad, because either we are too dumb as a society to look at a issue and find middle ground, or we just aren't interested in finding a solution. We are just interested in arguing about it.
 
Thing is it would be nice to increase animal welfare in farms but that would raise price of the final product. So it is market which dictates conditions these animals live at. Are we ok to pay double of what we are paying for milk, bacon and eggs in order to improve animal welfare before it gets on our dinner table? Now animal right activists say they are not eating meat, eggs and not using animal products like leather, etc will help to stop animal cruelty - that so far had absolutely no impact on it as they are in such minority that big meat producing farm owners are laughing at them.
At the end of the day it is up to us - consumers of animal products what are we buying and eating. And nothing will ever change as long as almighty dollar is decisive factor.
 
It mentions the obesity crisis. There are a lot of studies out there that show it isn't the type of food that we are eating, it is the amount of food we are eating. Which is funny, because the poorer you get, the more obese you get.

Maybe one of the many, many things we need to consider doing, is reducing the amount of benefits given to those on food stamps. If obesity is a huge problem, that is driving (according to this article) these farms and causing health costs to rise, then wouldn't reducing the amount given to food stamp recipients and cash assistance kill two birds with one stone?

If we ate less, we would need less. If we ate less, there would be less obesity. So, if we gave less to those that are the fattest (and I am not saying take away their freedom. Anybody is free to earn their money and spend it on as much food as they want. I'm talking about those who are given the food, and by taking it a food stamp, give up their freedom on what to spend it on, which they already do), wouldn't that be a partial solution to the problem?
 
AKMVP said:
Thing is it would be nice to increase animal welfare in farms but that would raise price of the final product. So it is market which dictates conditions these animals live at. Are we ok to pay double of what we are paying for milk, bacon and eggs in order to improve animal welfare before it gets on our dinner table? Now animal right activists say they are not eating meat, eggs and not using animal products like leather, etc will help to stop animal cruelty - that so far had absolutely no impact on it as they are in such minority that big meat producing farm owners are laughing at them.
At the end of the day it is up to us - consumers of animal products what are we buying and eating. And nothing will ever change as long as almighty dollar is decisive factor.
Click to expand...

I agree part of it is the almighty dollar, but I also think part of it is individual responsibility. Until individuals want to fix it, it won't get fixed.

Is the problem America, rich America, poor America, middle class America, all of America?

Until we are willing to really look at the problem and try to fix it, this is nothing more than sitting on the front porch arguing over a cup of iced tea.
 
green said:
It mentions the obesity crisis. There are a lot of studies out there that show it isn't the type of food that we are eating, it is the amount of food we are eating. Which is funny, because the poorer you get, the more obese you get.
Click to expand...

I find it controversial. To me correlation of high carb diet and obesity is to obvious to ignore. So at the end it is not meat, eggs or milk which is resulting in obesity - it is pizzas, bread, pasta, fries, donuts, cookies and other carb rich foods which are biggest culprits IMHO. And of course lifestyle and decrease in activity levels.
When I visited USA first time in my life in 2000 I was shocked by drive through banks. No wonder people get fat if they are to lazy to even get out of the car for a few feet walk to the bank.
 
The biggest issue with obesity, in my opinion, is activity level, or more precisely, matching intake to output. Ever seen the diet most professional athletes follow? The calorie counts from carbohydrates alone are often double what most people consume in a day, and that doesn't include fats or proteins. So what is the difference between an athlete and you and me? Almost exclusively it is activity level. Weight is in the end a fairly simple calculation: burn more than you eat and you lose weight, eat more than you burn and you gain. Now I know that a lot of work has been done on both sides of that equation, and there are varying factors that affect how much we burn or what impact our intake has on fat storage and such, but in the end if you move more and eat less you will be healthier and more likely to carry a healthy weight.

I think the issue with carbs or other specific types of foods, including fats, but less so proteins, is that they are not satiating, so it is so much easier to eat far more calories than you think you are, and they can also drive increased hunger. I can down easy 6-8 donuts, especially the Krispy Kreme basic glazed, and still feel hungry, and go for a big glass of chocolate milk and then eat "breakfast", but after I finish my eggs and whole wheat toast I start to feel full. I could have already had more calories in the donuts and chocolate milk before ever eating my eggs and toast. That is the problem with carbs in general, in my opinion. I mean I can down as much RC Cola as I can water at meal time, let's say, and then still eat my meal, while having added tons of extra calories that just don't register.

But again, aside from the many discussions about whether a sweet taste drives increased hunger, or the blood sugar issues of eating more carbs and such, in the end, eat more and move less and get fatter, eat less and move more and lose weight.
 
Gameface said:
When talking about food prices keep in mind that poor people are affected by rising food cost WAY WAY more than even low or low-middle income people. We are paying less for food now then at any point in human history. Seems like a good thing on the balance.

That doesn't mean I'm indifferent to being cruel to animals. Gutting a fish is about as much as I can handle. No way I could clean a deer or work in a slaughterhouse.

Credentials:
Franklin Elementary School "Kindness to Animals" award winner, 5th grade.
Click to expand...

This is mostly true. US agricultural subsides are at least part of the problem. They make American farm products overly competitive around the world. At first inspection this sounds like a good thing because it makes food cheaper in poor countries but it also means that dairy farmers(for example) in that country can no longer make a living so they often stop. This cause a countries domestically produced food supply to be cut. The market will make up for this and food prices will rise again but often the damage has already been done.

All this leads to concentrating much more of the worlds supply of animal products in US farms than is necessary or healthy.
 
LogGrad98 said:
The biggest issue with obesity, in my opinion, is activity level, or more precisely, matching intake to output. Ever seen the diet most professional athletes follow? The calorie counts from carbohydrates alone are often double what most people consume in a day, and that doesn't include fats or proteins. So what is the difference between an athlete and you and me? Almost exclusively it is activity level. Weight is in the end a fairly simple calculation: burn more than you eat and you lose weight, eat more than you burn and you gain. Now I know that a lot of work has been done on both sides of that equation, and there are varying factors that affect how much we burn or what impact our intake has on fat storage and such, but in the end if you move more and eat less you will be healthier and more likely to carry a healthy weight.

I think the issue with carbs or other specific types of foods, including fats, but less so proteins, is that they are not satiating, so it is so much easier to eat far more calories than you think you are, and they can also drive increased hunger. I can down easy 6-8 donuts, especially the Krispy Kreme basic glazed, and still feel hungry, and go for a big glass of chocolate milk and then eat "breakfast", but after I finish my eggs and whole wheat toast I start to feel full. I could have already had more calories in the donuts and chocolate milk before ever eating my eggs and toast. That is the problem with carbs in general, in my opinion. I mean I can down as much RC Cola as I can water at meal time, let's say, and then still eat my meal, while having added tons of extra calories that just don't register.

But again, aside from the many discussions about whether a sweet taste drives increased hunger, or the blood sugar issues of eating more carbs and such, in the end, eat more and move less and get fatter, eat less and move more and lose weight.
Click to expand...

I think it is mostly on intake. We aren't less active than European countries, and they all have McDonald's, etc, but we eat a lot more. A lot more.
 
heyhey said:
This is mostly true. US agricultural subsides are at least part of the problem. They make American farm products overly competitive around the world. At first inspection this sounds like a good thing because it makes food cheaper in poor countries but it also means that dairy farmers(for example) in that country can no longer make a living so they often stop. This cause a countries domestically produced food supply to be cut. The market will make up for this and food prices will rise again but often the damage has already been done.

All this leads to concentrating much more of the worlds supply of animal products in US farms than is necessary or healthy.
Click to expand...

This goes back to my Reagon thing. Why are we trying to get so big? What is the motivation? Was it always there, or did deregulation make it possible?
 
green said:
I love the ridiculousness of this article. It talks about how they tried to pass a measure in Democrat controlled California, but it was the Republicans who stopped it.
Click to expand...

???

That fall, voters turned in a landslide verdict, passing the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act by a margin of almost two to one.
Click to expand...

I saw no mention of a measure that failed to pass in California. The article did mention the Republicans as being int he pockets of Big Meat, and I think it would have been fair to say this is also true of many Democrats.
 
I'm not sure how much impact increasing regulations would have on the poor. If prices on meat and dairy increase, less is consumed, and there is more farmland available for growing cheaper alternatives (grains, nuts, fruit, legumes, tubers, etc.). So if eggs go up and peanut butter goes down, is there a net hardship?

People shouldn't do without meat/dairy entirely, but many/most could probably shift in the direction of a little less and not give up any health benefits.
 
One Brow said:
???



I saw no mention of a measure that failed to pass in California. The article did mention the Republicans as being int he pockets of Big Meat, and I think it would have been fair to say this is also true of many Democrats.
Click to expand...

I did go back and re-read it and I mis-remembered how I read it. ;)

I would be curious to see if it was only Repubs who fought against it, like the article insinuates though.
 
One Brow said:
I'm not sure how much impact increasing regulations would have on the poor. If prices on meat and dairy increase, less is consumed, and there is more farmland available for growing cheaper alternatives (grains, nuts, fruit, legumes, tubers, etc.). So if eggs go up and peanut butter goes down, is there a net hardship?

People shouldn't do without meat/dairy entirely, but many/most could probably shift in the direction of a little less and not give up any health benefits.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with this. I like it.
 
What not enough people realize is how the animals you eat are treated and what they are fed affects your own health drastically.

You are what you eat eats.

I buy all of my meat in bulk from a local family farm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top