What's new

Cruelty in factory farming

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.

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?
 
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.

???

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

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.
 
???



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 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.
 
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.

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.
 
I must be a grade "A" ******* because I don't care how my future food is treated. I'm trying to care, I just can't.

I don't think that. I do think everyone should know this, but if you choose to use meat/milk/eggs anyhow, no big deal.
 
I must be a grade "A" ******* because I don't care how my future food is treated. I'm trying to care, I just can't.

Well the way it is treated before it ends up on your table affects its quality. So if you want good quality of the food you are eating you should at least care about that.
 
I must be a grade "A" ******* because I don't care how my future food is treated. I'm trying to care, I just can't.

You should care about the quality of BACON. I'm tired of over paying for decent bacon. They can only charge me so much because there are so few farmers producing it. I like bacon fat but cheap bacon is all fat.
 
Back
Top