The Ethics of Food Production

[Sair]

In response to a suggestion on another thread, I’ve decided to take the plunge, open up a whole new can of worms, and throw any other appropriate metaphors into the mix and start a thread about ethical farming practices, in particular animal husbandry.

These days it seems more and more people are becoming aware of the abuses inherent in large-scale factory farming, and are opting for more humane choices, such as free-range eggs and organic meat.

Trouble is, ethical choices are expensive. Unfortunately, the way organic and free-range products have been pitched is to a niche market that has sufficient disposable income to spend up to twice as much for some products because they carry the ‘organic’ or ‘free-range’ label. Marketing has turned ethical eating into a fashion statement.

Now, don’t get me wrong - I have no problem with people eating meat. Physiologically, we are omnivores, designed to derive nutrition from a variety of food sources - our relatively blunt teeth and fairly long gut suggests that we are evolved to subsist on a largely vegetarian diet, supplemented by animal protein.

So it’s not the eating of meat as such that is the problem. But being humans, we tend to do this thing where we assume that because we can do something, we should be allowed to do it - in fact, we have an inalienable right to do it. It seems that as more and more people became convinced that they had a right to eat meat, and developed a preference for it, farming practices became more and more intensive, to the point where comparing a chicken farm to a concentration camp begins to look like understating the issue.

There are a number of issues connected to intensive animal farming. The most obvious is the suffering it causes to the animals involved. They are confined in enclosures that barely allow them room to move, let alone perform any of their natural functions; they are bred specifically to increase meat production - on some farms, chickens are bred so that they reach slaughter weight in a matter of a few weeks, and their legs become deformed because they don’t grow fast enough to bear the weight of their bodies; on the whole, intensive farming results in animals that are so stressed that killing them for food almost seems like an act of mercy.

Furthermore, the meat industry is incredibly wasteful - far more meat spoils and is thrown away than is consumed. Also, using land for raising livestock on a large scale is not the most economical means of food production - far more food could be produced if the same area of land was used for growing staples such as wheat and corn.

I have presented my take on what I see as the problem of intensive farming practices. So, what are people’s thoughts on the issue? What do you think is the right way to respond to it?

 

[Cracker_Mom]

In response to a suggestion on another thread, I’ve decided to take the plunge, open up a whole new can of worms, and throw any other appropriate metaphors into the mix and start a thread about ethical farming practices, in particular animal husbandry.

These days it seems more and more people are becoming aware of the abuses inherent in large-scale factory farming, and are opting for more humane choices, such as free-range eggs and organic meat.

Trouble is, ethical choices are expensive. Unfortunately, the way organic and free-range products have been pitched is to a niche market that has sufficient disposable income to spend up to twice as much for some products because they carry the ‘organic’ or ‘free-range’ label. Marketing has turned ethical eating into a fashion statement.

Now, don’t get me wrong - I have no problem with people eating meat. Physiologically, we are omnivores, designed to derive nutrition from a variety of food sources - our relatively blunt teeth and fairly long gut suggests that we are evolved to subsist on a largely vegetarian diet, supplemented by animal protein.

So it’s not the eating of meat as such that is the problem. But being humans, we tend to do this thing where we assume that because we can do something, we should be allowed to do it - in fact, we have an inalienable right to do it. It seems that as more and more people became convinced that they had a right to eat meat, and developed a preference for it, farming practices became more and more intensive, to the point where comparing a chicken farm to a concentration camp begins to look like understating the issue.

There are a number of issues connected to intensive animal farming. The most obvious is the suffering it causes to the animals involved. They are confined in enclosures that barely allow them room to move, let alone perform any of their natural functions; they are bred specifically to increase meat production - on some farms, chickens are bred so that they reach slaughter weight in a matter of a few weeks, and their legs become deformed because they don’t grow fast enough to bear the weight of their bodies; on the whole, intensive farming results in animals that are so stressed that killing them for food almost seems like an act of mercy.

Furthermore, the meat industry is incredibly wasteful - far more meat spoils and is thrown away than is consumed. Also, using land for raising livestock on a large scale is not the most economical means of food production - far more food could be produced if the same area of land was used for growing staples such as wheat and corn.

I have presented my take on what I see as the problem of intensive farming practices. So, what are people’s thoughts on the issue? What do you think is the right way to respond to it?

Where are the stats on meat being thrown away? Here the by-products are used in other ways than for human consumption.
Pasturing animals is not a wasteful use of land & causes less erosion than tillage.
All livestock animals have been bred to produce more meat,eggs,or milk than nature intended.If we went back to the original critters, they’d be healthier but we’d be hungrier.
My concerns with large scale farming is that it requires a huge investment of capital for the individual farmer with very uncertain results & heavy debt.

 

[Sair]

Where are the stats on meat being thrown away? Here the by-products are used in other ways than for human consumption.
Pasturing animals is not a wasteful use of land & causes less erosion than tillage.
All livestock animals have been bred to produce more meat,eggs,or milk than nature intended.If we went back to the original critters, they’d be healthier but we’d be hungrier.
My concerns with large scale farming is that it requires a huge investment of capital for the individual farmer with very uncertain results & heavy debt.

Most of the wastage occurs at the supermarket end, where meat spoils and becomes unfit for consumption - usually due to stresses on the animals and bruising during the slaughtering and packing processes that make the meat go off more quickly. Of course, the problem of supermarket wastage isn’t confined to meat products - often it’s much cheaper for large supermarkets to dump their unsold food into landfill - even if it hasn’t spoiled - than to give it away to those in need or find some other way of recycling it.

And some methods of recycling are harmful in themselves - it is generally believed by scientists studying mad cow disease - and its human equivalent - that it originated via the practice of supplementing cattle feed with ground offal from previously slaughtered cows.

Overgrazing - when there are hundreds of thousands of head of livestock grazing on relatively small pastureland - causes just as much soil degredation as intensive agriculture. Where cattle are not pastured but grain-fed, land must still be used to cultivate their feed.

If animals are raised organically, the nutritional value of eating them is increased. And no, we would not be hungrier - we would just eat less meat.

This website outlines more of the abuses inherent in factory farming than I have so far covered:
sustainabletable.org/issues/factoryfarming/

 

[Leopard]

Most of the wastage occurs at the supermarket end, where meat spoils and becomes unfit for consumption - usually due to stresses on the animals and bruising during the slaughtering and packing processes that make the meat go off more quickly. Of course, the problem of supermarket wastage isn’t confined to meat products - often it’s much cheaper for large supermarkets to dump their unsold food into landfill - even if it hasn’t spoiled - than to give it away to those in need or find some other way of recycling it…

This is not necessarily correct. I know of many food store owners and managers who would gladly give unsalable food to the needy. It would cost them less than paying a waste hauler to remove it, it would be an ethical way to help the local community, and it would be good PR for the stores.

The reason they do not do so is that they are constrained by health laws and insurance costs. If you think that food stores should be freer to give away unsalable meat to the needy, get your legislators to change the health regulations and tort laws.

 

[Sair]

It occurs to me that all the objections I have to human “use” of animals in the ways we currently employ may be summed up as follows: We allow the non-basic, luxury needs of humans (generally referred to as ‘desires’) to trump the basic needs of nonhuman animals. In other words - and in specific relation to factory farming - we think that our desire to eat meat on a more-or-less daily basis is more important than the basic needs of those animals that provide said meat to follow the natural course of their lives and carry out their normal behaviours.

To me, that is simply unacceptable. It is just as unacceptable as the Western world ignoring the needs of people in developing countries to grow food crops because we desire cheap and readily available coffee and tobacco.

 

[Sair]

This is not necessarily correct. I know of many food store owners and managers who would gladly give unsalable food to the needy. It would cost them less than paying a waste hauler to remove it, it would be an ethical way to help the local community, and it would be good PR for the stores.

The reason they do not do so is that they are constrained by health laws and insurance costs. If you think that food stores should be freer to give away unsalable meat to the needy, get your legislators to change the health regulations and tort laws.

I would be interested to find out if these are small, independent grocers or large-scale franchised supermarkets. From what I have gathered, it’s the large chains who can afford to absorb the financial cost of wastage, while the small retailers have more interest in maintaining good relations with their communities.

This does not, of course, assuage the concern that it is intensive farming practices and large-scale meatpacking operations that make meat products more apt to spoil in the first place.

 

[Leopard]

I would be interested to find out if these are small, independent grocers or large-scale franchised supermarkets…

Both.

 

[yellowbird]

To me, that is simply unacceptable. It is just as unacceptable as the Western world ignoring the needs of people in developing countries to grow food crops because we desire cheap and readily available coffee and tobacco.

I don’t think ignoring the needs of people is the same as ignoring the needs of animals. Not even close. And that’s the problem I have with animal rights people… most seem to put animals on the same level as humans… you called them “non-humans” which is accurate, but I wouldn’t even call them that… they are just animals.

If meat is spoiling in the stores creating waste, I’m sad for the hungry people it could’ve fed, NOT for the dead animal. As a Mom, I tell my children to eat their meatloaf because there are starving children in Africa, not because a cow was slaughtered.

I said it on a different thread, but I’ll say it again here: When animals rights people start caring about the slaughter of unborn people as much as they care about the slaughter of animals, I’ll start paying attention to what else they have to say.

I’m not speaking to you specifically Sair. I’m just talking in general.

 

[Sair]

I don’t think ignoring the needs of people is the same as ignoring the needs of animals. Not even close. And that’s the problem I have with animal rights people… most seem to put animals on the same level as humans… you called them “non-humans” which is accurate, but I wouldn’t even call them that… they are just animals.

If meat is spoiling in the stores creating waste, I’m sad for the hungry people it could’ve fed, NOT for the animal that died. As a Mom, I tell my children to eat their meatloaf because there are starving children in Africa, not because a cow was slaughtered.

I said it on a different thread, but I’ll say it again here: When animals rights people start caring about the slaughter of unborn people as much as they care about the slaughter of animals, I’ll start paying attention to what else they have to say.

I’m not speaking to you specifically Sair. I’m just talking in general.

The problem I have with this approach is that farm animals such as cows, sheep and chickens actually have a far greater claim to sentience than a second-trimester foetus, in that they have a fully-developed nervous system, can feel pain, and have an innate interest in their continued existence - call it a survival instinct, if you will. The only thing that makes these issues contentious is the determination of many people to place humans in a category completely separate to other animals. This is rationally indefensible on many bases, which I have already described on other threads. I certainly don’t remember what it was like to be a foetus in the womb. At that time, I had no personal interest in my future survival - it was my parents’ interest that determined whether or not I lived. It is not necessary to champion the cause of unborn human foetuses in order to care about the suffering of other animals.

 

[yellowbird]

The problem I have with this approach is that farm animals such as cows, sheep and chickens actually have a far greater claim to sentience than a second-trimester foetus, in that they have a fully-developed nervous system, can feel pain, and have an innate interest in their continued existence - call it a survival instinct, if you will. The only thing that makes these issues contentious is the determination of many people to place humans in a category completely separate to other animals. This is rationally indefensible on many bases, which I have already described on other threads. I certainly don’t remember what it was like to be a foetus in the womb. At that time, I had no personal interest in my future survival - it was my parents’ interest that determined whether or not I lived. It is not necessary to champion the cause of unborn human foetuses in order to care about the suffering of other animals.

The difference between the unborn child and a sheep is the unborn child was created in the image of God and given an eternal soul. The sheep was not.

It’s a big difference.

Big.

Humans didn’t put themselves in a catagory seperate to animals… God did.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Overgrazing - when there are hundreds of thousands of head of livestock grazing on relatively small pastureland - causes just as much soil degredation as intensive agriculture. Where cattle are not pastured but grain-fed, land must still be used to cultivate their feed.

I’ve got 170 acres with approximately 40 or so cows and 2 bulls. That is the most that land can handle and allow those animals to graze without having to buy hay.

There is a lot of land around me, owned by others who max out their ratio of cows per acre without having to buy additional food for them.

I’d really like to see hundreds of thousands of livestock grazing on a small pasture.

 

[1ke]

It is not necessary to champion the cause of unborn human foetuses in order to care about the suffering of other animals.

People are not animals.

 

[1ke]

You make several fallacious assumptions.

You assume all large farms treat animals inhumanely. You also assume that all organic farms treat animals humanely. You also seem to assume that no organic operations are “large.”

I hope you’ll educate yourself from a source other than the PETA website before you go posting about farming. Maybe do some actual farming.

 

[Jermosh]

I sort of see the logic in some of the eastern block countries in their mandatory work programs where they make all of the citizens work on a farm and factory once in their life. To an outside person who is used to seeing animals as a friendly pet, farm life and slaughter of them seems quite barbaric. Working on a farm takes that away and you tend to see a cow in the same light as you would a head of broccoli, or a giant pumpkin, or even a hobby car maybe. Animals are just things, we have to respect them and give them honor, but they are still just things in the end.

 

[Sair]

You make several fallacious assumptions.

You assume all large farms treat animals inhumanely. You also assume that all organic farms treat animals humanely. You also seem to assume that no organic operations are “large.”

I hope you’ll educate yourself from a source other than the PETA website before you go posting about farming. Maybe do some actual farming.

Just comparing some statistics for chicken farms - intensive operations house around 45,000 birds per shed. The chickens spend the whole of their short lives confined in the sheds, with no room to move and no escape from their own excrement. Free-range operations house around 7,000 birds in sheds of the same size as the intensive operations. Although the birds are confined at night, they have access to outside areas so they can peck and forage during the day. Organic chicken farms house around 700 birds per shed, and the chickens have free access to outdoor areas, so they can peck and forage at will and have a safe place to roost. They are also given more than twice as long to mature to slaughter weight as intensively-farmed birds, and they are not pumped full of growth hormones. I don’t have to assume which one of these farming methods is the most humane. The facts speak for themselves.

Why is it that people who couldn’t care less about animal welfare assume that those who do care have no idea what it’s like to raise and slaughter animals? Do you think we only care out of ignorance? Check out this website for the views of someone who is an actual farmer and knows exactly what he’s talking about:

rivercottage.net/FoodMatters/

 

[Jermosh]

… and they are not pumped full of growth hormones…

Just to clarify that chicken farms are not allowed to use hormones to get a USDA gradeing.
fsis.usda.gov/fact_Sheets/Chicken_Food_Safety_Focus/index.asp

 

[bbarrick8383]

Why is it that people who couldn’t care less about animal welfare assume that those who do care have no idea what it’s like to raise and slaughter animals? Do you think we only care out of ignorance? Check out this website for the views of someone who is an actual farmer and knows exactly what he’s talking about:

It’s not that I could care less about animal welfare, it’s that I do not have a better solution to mass production of food for millions of people. So I live my life and treat my animals with care and respect.

Just for your information, I’ve lived on a farm my whole life. I’ve had to do things that would make someone like you squirm. I’ve helped birth pigs and calfs. I’ve helped young cows birth stillborn calfs with chains wrapped around the calfs feet and pulling sometimes with two or more people, sometimes we’ve had to wrap the chains around the tractor. The fact is there are things on farms that you have to do regardless of how humane it is.

Not sure if you are the one who talked about their dog dying when you were a child or not, but try having to shoot your own dog.

 

[Jermosh]

Just for your information, I’ve lived on a farm my whole life. I’ve had to do things that would make someone like you squirm. I’ve helped birth pigs and calfs. I’ve helped young cows birth stillborn calfs with chains wrapped around the calfs feet and pulling sometimes with two or more people, sometimes we’ve had to wrap the chains around the tractor. The fact is there are things on farms that you have to do regardless of how humane it is.

Man that brings back memories for me. I grew up in “Amish” country and have avid memories of seeing this done, whole families would be awoken to help with this.

Also dont forget to mention the smell, and poop being splattered on you while doing this.

 

[1ke]

and they are not pumped full of growth hormones. I don’t have to assume which one of these farming methods is the most humane. The facts speak for themselves.

You lack credibility when you present “facts” that are not facts at all. Chickens do not receive growth hormones whether raised conventionally or organically. You give propaganda, but not facts.

Why is it that people who couldn’t care less about animal welfare

More fallacious arguing. You have assumed a fact not in evidence.

assume that those who do care have no idea what it’s like to raise and slaughter animals?

Your factually incorrect statements led me to believe you lacked experience on a farm, not your passion for animals.

Do you think we only care out of ignorance?

Many do.

Check out this website for the views of someone who is an actual farmer and knows exactly what he’s talking about:

Since my husband and I are actual farmers, I do not need a website to tell me about farming.

 

[Marfran]

Sair: You are well educated/well read. I am glad that you started this thread. The problem that I see here is that many people in this country (America) are completely ignorant of food production/practices. People will stick anything in their mouths–even if they can not pronounce the ingredients, much less know what they are. Somehow the general public assumes that the big companies can be trusted to manufacture safe food. (If it doesn’t kill you in the first few minutes after consuming it–it must be OK).

I have noticed that people like to argue–but they they do not want to do the research.

People,* learn *about how our food is produced. You will be surprised, amazed, become angry, and maybe even recoil from certain manuctured/processed items.

It does not matter that the animals are not human–they have their place here with us. God created them–they are a part of Him and part of our world. God loves all of His creation, and we, made in His image, asigned to be the stewards of this planet, should take better care of all that God has made.

God created the chicken so that we could sear off it’s beak with a hot gun (and no anesthesia) and stuff it in a cage with 10+ other birds in a space so small that they are not comfortable, and can not move around??? So that we can have eggs??? Must we be so barbaric to get those eggs? Is it really OK?

I completely do not get the arguments tying abortion to agribusiness practices–one has nothing to do with the other. Animals are sentient beings that feel physical pain just as we do–we can not deny this is not so. We need to address the agribusiness practices that inflict suffering to these sentient beings. Abortion is a separate issue–and should be considered in the correct context and format.

I wish you luck, Sair, moderating this discussion!