WouldBe
Dislicksick
Why the hell would locally reared beef go up in price due to shitty American imports? If anything, due to the surplus of beef, the price would drop so you wouldn't be spending most of your weekly budget on a slab of beef.
Opinion: "The End of Meat Is Here" - NY Times
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
editor
hiraethified
Way too miss the point which is that this shit will be as cheap as it can possibly be because of lowered welfare standards and hormone-pumping weirdness, and it'll be the poor that end up having to eat it.
Favelado
J'adore South Shore
You won't know which is and which isn't. The supermarket becomes a lottery.
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
That's what happened here. Country of origin labeling got declared illegal in the US. Unless you buy directly from the farmer* who raised it, you don't know where any of it comes from or what conditions it was raised in, or what conditions exist for human workers who process it. Beware of the race to the bottom. Its not just a race to the bottom of animal welfare, its wages and human health too.
* There are regulations that make it difficult for a farmer to market his own product.
Last edited:
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Fortunately we do have country of origin labelling on stuff in the UK. Hence being able to tell the difference between NZ and British lamb.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
Good article here exploding some meathead myths:
www.theguardian.com
Why you should go animal-free: 18 arguments for eating meat debunked
Unpalatable as it may be for those wedded to producing and eating meat, the environmental and health evidence for a plant-based diet is clear
PaoloSanchez
Well-Known Member
Actually not a bad article. I recognise a lot of those arguments by apologists who appear to believe that those are valid arguments, bless.Good article here exploding some meathead myths:
Why you should go animal-free: 18 arguments for eating meat debunked
Unpalatable as it may be for those wedded to producing and eating meat, the environmental and health evidence for a plant-based diet is clear
Bless.
You patronising cunt.
You patronising cunt.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Who's going to force poor people to eat this shit? Or do you think poor people aren't capable of making moral judgements?
PaoloSanchez
Well-Known Member
Remember, profit is king. Everything else be damned.
Ultimately it is regular punters like us, the consumers, that can control this. If we were smart and organised enough then we would make sure that these conditions did not exist through our purchasing decisions. If we don't buy, they can't sell and they don't profit. Demand and Supply 101.
Unfortunately the profiteers are smart enough to know this and so make sure that they employ very effective PR, marketing and lobbying techniques and as a result can fool nearly all of the people nearly all of the time. So either we wake up, wise up and smell the coffee and stop playing their game, or we carry on with our collective stupidity and foolishness and suffer the consequences.
editor
hiraethified
Sometimes I really despair at your inability to understand the obvious.Who's going to force poor people to eat this shit? Or do you think poor people aren't capable of making moral judgements?
Priceless.
Meat should be taxed more
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Or just subsidised less.
PaoloSanchez
Well-Known Member
I was just about to post that.
Paying for the true costs of our meat, eggs and dairy
"Livestock production, in particular industrial production, produces a wide range of negative externalities. These include pollution and overuse of water, soil degradation, greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss, increased levels of disease in humans and very poor animal welfare.
The low cost of industrially produced animal products is achieved only by an economic sleight of hand. We have devised a distorting economics which takes account of some costs such as housing and feeding animals but ignores others including the detrimental impact on human health and natural resources of industrial agriculture. This results in market failure as the costs associated with livestock’s negative externalities are borne by third parties or society as a whole and are not included in the costs paid by farmers or the prices paid by consumers. In some cases the costs are borne by no-one and key resources such as soil and biodiversity are allowed to deteriorate undermining the ability of future generations to feed themselves."
PaoloSanchez
Well-Known Member
It's interesting to see how govt directives, mainstream media coverage and public pressure has resulted in the more widespread adoption of the wearing of masks in the UK and other countries, and people who are refusing to wear masks are being shamed, and in some places it's the other way around. There are now viral videos of "Karens" freaking out because they've been prevented from entering stores because they refuse to wear a mask.
I wonder what would happen if a similar level of scrutiny was focused on the activities that are the root cause of the current (and previous) pandemics...
Now I'm not suggesting that people should start berating those that choose to continue consuming the products of animal agriculture, however I do wonder about how long it will take for the penny to drop. How bad does it have to get before folks make the connection. Another 2 or 3 pandemics perhaps?
Of course there will be no "end of meat" until there's a widespread change of habits...or perhaps until there's an end of people.
Is it really worth it?
I wonder what would happen if a similar level of scrutiny was focused on the activities that are the root cause of the current (and previous) pandemics...
Now I'm not suggesting that people should start berating those that choose to continue consuming the products of animal agriculture, however I do wonder about how long it will take for the penny to drop. How bad does it have to get before folks make the connection. Another 2 or 3 pandemics perhaps?
Of course there will be no "end of meat" until there's a widespread change of habits...or perhaps until there's an end of people.
Is it really worth it?
Is mask wearing widespread?
PaoloSanchez
Well-Known Member
It's mandatory on public transport in the UK, I think that counts as widespread.
It would be a great start if as many people stopped consuming animal products within that same period of time.
Last edited:
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
capitalism?
PaoloSanchez
Well-Known Member
Not quite, especially given that the current global C19 disaster originated in "communist" China, and we have this waiting in the wings ready to pounce...
Flu virus with 'pandemic potential' found in China
The new strain, scientists say, is carried by pigs but can infect humans and requires close monitoring.
www.bbc.co.uk
...the root cause transcends political ideologies. Bird flu, swine flue, bat flu, heart disease, pangolin flu, CJD, Edwina Curry disease, E.Coli, Marmot flu....how many more diseases caused by the insatiable "sins of the flesh" do we need before we've had enough?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
The disease came from bats disturbed by urban expansion into areas they inhabit, forcing them to try to find new habitats. Being vegan wouldn’t stop that.
Flu virus with 'pandemic potential' found in China
The new strain, scientists say, is carried by pigs but can infect humans and requires close monitoring.www.bbc.co.uk
...the root cause transcends political ideologies. Bird flu, swine flue, bat flu, heart disease, pangolin flu, CJD, Edwina Curry disease, E.Coli, Marmot flu....how many more diseases caused by the insatiable "sins of the flesh" do we need before we've had enough?
And surely you’ve been here long enough to know that China (if the pandemic did indeed start there) is capitalist, not communist.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Of course not. But it’s more accurate than just saying ‘meat’
PaoloSanchez
Well-Known Member
Hang on a minute, so you're sure about the origin of the disease, it deffo came from disturbed bats...but not sure if it started in China?
According to this W.H.O. report...
"All available evidence for COVID-19 suggests that SARS-CoV-2 has a zoonotic source. Since there is usually limited close contact between humans and bats, it is more likely that transmission of the virus to humans happened through another animal species, one that is more likely to be handled by humans. This intermediate animal host or zoonotic source could be a domestic animal, a wild animal, or a domesticated wild animal and, as of yet, has not been identified"
So indeed, it is possible that C19 might not have been stopped by "being vegan" and it's also possible that it's been exacerbated by the "sins of the flesh". Regardless, there is plenty of evidence supporting the prevalence of diseases that do have origins in animal agriculture, and a shift to being vegan would reduce those risks.
Chinese capitalism is an oxymoron.
It's a bit of a moot point, it doesn't really matter whether China is capitalist or communist tbh, it isn't the political ideology that is behind the hunger for flesh, it's personal habit, and it's up to the individuals to change their own habits which will have an impact on demand and supply. Less people consuming animal products means less domesticated livestock and poultry being bred into existence, resulting in lower risks of pandemic zoonotic diseases, antibiotic resistance and all the other negative side effects of animal agribusiness. We go from the current lose lose lose situation to a potential win win win. What's not to like about that?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
possible...reduce.... no problem with those. But pandemics would still exist and be spread. So your earlier comment was a tad exaggerated.Hang on a minute, so you're sure about the origin of the disease, it deffo came from disturbed bats...but not sure if it started in China?
According to this W.H.O. report...
"All available evidence for COVID-19 suggests that SARS-CoV-2 has a zoonotic source. Since there is usually limited close contact between humans and bats, it is more likely that transmission of the virus to humans happened through another animal species, one that is more likely to be handled by humans. This intermediate animal host or zoonotic source could be a domestic animal, a wild animal, or a domesticated wild animal and, as of yet, has not been identified"
So indeed, it is possible that C19 might not have been stopped by "being vegan" and it's also possible that it's been exacerbated by the "sins of the flesh". Regardless, there is plenty of evidence supporting the prevalence of diseases that do have origins in animal agriculture, and a shift to being vegan would reduce those risks.
It isn't 'personal habit', that's whats wrong with that. And it ignores how such diseases are spread by human beings destroying much of the planet, especially its rainforests. Some of which is for meat,and some of which is for human sprawl, and all is for £$£$£$£$£$£$. And considering the fact that you accept a vegan world is not imminently on the cards, then there are several more urgent actions that could be taken.
souljacker
innit
PaoloSanchez That plague video is nonsense. Bubonic plague isn't 'back'. It never went away and is easily treatable.
PaoloSanchez
Well-Known Member
Are any pandemics caused by animal agriculture at all? If the answer is yes, and I believe that to be so, then surely it's better to have less of them, something that could be achieved by "the end of meat". I'm not sure which comment you are referring to but if anything I think I may have understated the negative effects animal agriculture rather than exaggerated it.
It is personal habits and choices which drive the economy. It's at the heart of peoples purchasing decisions and it is those decisions that create the "£$£$£$£$£$£$".
"Some of which is for meat"?
Now that really is an understatement, lets take a look at some of the numbers...
Now I suppose it depends on exactly what you mean by "human sprawl", but if we include total agriculture and built up areas in that definition, that accounts for 37% of the earths "habitable land", of which 29% is used for animal agriculture. Lord only knows how much land would be required to satisfy the current and future levels of demand if all the factory farmed animals were to be replaced by free range and grass fed animals.
It doesn't take a genius to see where some big savings can be made, and it's not just savings in land use, but also in the associated negative environmental impacts.
Hmmm, I'm not sure that I ever said or implied that I accept that at all. Things can change very quickly depending on circumstances, as the first half of 2020 has clearly demonstrated. I am not one for appealing to futility, and even though, on the face of it, the possibility of a "vegan world" seems unlikely, it's still worth advocating for, because it's the right thing to do imo. If history's brave pioneers gave up on "lost causes" like campaigning for women's rights or the end of slavery then we wouldn't have made progress in those areas, and those campaigns were also morally the right things to do.
I'm not sure what the "more urgent actions" are that you have in mind, but regardless, vegan advocacy addresses a good number of areas that are critical to our future on this planet, and I'd be willing to bet that they're not mutually exclusive with your "urgent actions".
PaoloSanchez
Well-Known Member
Well according to the W.H.O. it has...
"But while modern medicine can treat the plague, it has not eliminated it entirely -- and it has made a recent comeback, leading the World Health Organization (WHO) to categorize it as a re-emerging disease."
(source)
Granted it's not on the same threat level as C19, however it is another zoontic disease we could do without, plus there's also the small matter of several other nasties of recent history and present including the already mentioned swine flu, bird flu, cjd and the ever present threat of serious consequences resulting from antibiotic overuse in animal agriculture. So yeah, not entirely "nonsense" imo.
Doodler
You're quite nice when you smile
Two new restaurants have opened up a few minutes walk from my home. Both are vegan. One does 'plant-based' versions of night-time economy staples like burgers and fried chicken, the other features things made of tofu on its menu plus coffee and muffins etc. Many of the customers will be students doing vocational courses in healthcare etc. This would have been unimaginable 20-30 years ago.
editor
hiraethified
Yeah, there's been huge strides in catering for vegans/veggies in the last decade and at times the meat/dairy industry begins to sound a bit desperate when they try to ban the use of words like burger, sausage and milk. Times are changing and the quicker they realise it's not just some silly fad, the better for their business.
Dairy milk sales are never going to be the same in the UK with so many alternatives now available, and that's a good thing, IMO.
Similar threads
