Scoffing too much meat and eggs is ‘just as bad as smoking’, claim scientists

[sleaterkinney]

I'll probably regret saying this, I've been feeding my perfectly healthy cat vegan food for the last ten years. In common with all cat food the taurine in its diet is synthesised as the recovery process of turning the remains of factory farmed animals into pet food destroys the naturally available taurine.

Luke's a farm cat and there's plenty of vermin around for him to hunt. He also gets the occasional leftover meat from meals. Despite the woodshed and the milling barn being in easy reach he doesn't bring back many presents. I've no problem with him hunting. If there is anything natural about owning a cat that's the animals desire to hunt.

Before I started him on the diet I gave the animal a choice between his regular food or Ami. He expressed no preference.

I'm sorry, but this cracks me up - he expressed no preference, It's a cat.

 

[free spirit]

you can stick your recommendations up your blocked passage!

from a cow's point of view! listen to yourself ffs
"and if we paint a daisy on the bit of panelling just before they get a bolt through the head they'll be thinking of daisies and not death, might even taste a tiny bit nicer, mmmm" jesus wept

bit in bold, "done the right thing" killing it for food is not the right thing when there are other altrnatives, full stop
aaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrghh

The difficulty with this line of argument being that there would barely be any cows alive if it weren't for farming for meat / milk, and those that were alive would be getting ripped apart by wolves / bears / lions etc if left entirely to nature.

So the question becomes whether it's better for farm animals to live a decent life, then be killed relatively humanely at the end of their lives, or for those animals never to have lived at all.

In battery farming, I'd probably support the 'never lived at all' line of thinking, but for free range farming, I reckon the world's a better place because those animals are farmed. Also much of the land they're raised on is unsuitable for other food crops.

I think that battery farming / industrial farming of animals should be banned, and that meat should be viewed a lot more as a special treat to be eaten irregularly rather than somethng to form the basis of every meal.

ps I'm aware that most vegetarians take a different view on this, and respect their right to hold that opinion, just after giving it considerable thought, I find a disagree. I'd hate to see a countryside without sheep, cows etc. almost as much as I hate to think of the animals in the battery farm conditions.

 

[ska invita]

The bit you clearly don't get is that I am fine with the idea of raising and killing animals to eat. You appear unable to see beyond that point and you are led to a strange place where you simply won't accept that a meat-eater can have genuine concern for animal welfare.

I can accept that you have a degree of concern, and powerless as I am to stop people eating meat Id rather farmed animal lives were as pleasant as possible, and their deaths as stress-free as possible...its just about better than the alternatives - but to someone who considers killing animals for food fundamentally wrong, your concern is made totally insignificant by the action of killing. Its not something you can reason your way out of, just as if I killed your family but made sure it happened in a stress-free way it wouldn't satisfy you one bit. It's a fundamental clash of viewpoints that you can't come to a common ground on. Thats why vegi v meat threads always run and run...

There are slaughter practices that meat eaters find acceptable and others that we don't.

You suggest that are some ways of killing animals you find "unacceptable", suggesting you wouldnt accept it... do you feel like you have any idea what death an animal you eat has had? I'd hedge my bets it was even the animal it said on the packaging, never mind if it had been killed in some kind of blissful stress-free way. The only way you can know is to see it for yourself.

Luke's a farm cat and there's plenty of vermin around for him to hunt. He also gets the occasional leftover meat from meals. Despite the woodshed and the milling barn being in easy reach he doesn't bring back many presents. I've no problem with him hunting. If there is anything natural about owning a cat that's the animals desire to hunt.

Domestic cats kill way too many birds, and I think its the onus of cat owners to put a bell on them, particularly cats out in the country.
Thats the RSPB line: http://www.rspb.org.uk/advice/gardening/unwantedvisitors/cats/collarthatcat.aspx
"Results show that cats equipped with a bell returned 41 per cent fewer birds and 34 per cent fewer mammals than those with a plain collar. Those equipped with an electronic sonic device returned 51 per cent fewer birds and 38 per cent fewer mammals, compared with cats wearing a plain collar."

 

[Dr_Herbz]

I often wonder how many people would be eating meat if they had to kill the animal themself.

 

[fishfinger]

I often wonder how many people would be eating meat if they had to kill the animal themself.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I've killed, prepared, and eaten animals.

 

[Ax^]

I often wonder how many people would be eating meat if they had to kill the animal themself.

Depends can you choose you own method on how you kill the animal

If I could use a trebuchet to kill my own meat, I'd be right up for it...


The health and safety lot might frown but if a man cannot send his intended dinner 40 foot in the air and across the length of a football pitch with some target set up just for pre dinner entertainment well it broken frigging Britain I tells ye...

And it would still be more humane that halal.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You suggest that are some ways of killing animals you find "unacceptable", suggesting you wouldnt accept it... do you feel like you have any idea what death an animal you eat has had? I'd hedge my bets it was even the animal it said on the packaging, never mind if it had been killed in some kind of blissful stress-free way. The only way you can know is to see it for yourself.

This is very true. I admit that I still eat meat where I can be quite confident that the animal wasn't treated well - a chicken curry at a restaurant, for instance. I shouldn't do that.

But at the same time, these problems go wider, and battery chickens are cheaper, so for some people eating more ethically is more difficult than for others. I agree with freespirit on this that such practices should be banned, and if that means many of us eat less meat, then that's probably a good thing. But only if it's combined with other changes that keep meat available to all, even if it has to be an occasional treat.

 

[xenon]

Depends how hungry I was and whether I knew what I was doing. If we're going to have these daft arguments. how many people would use a mobile phone if they had to mine the rare Earth elements themselves.

 

[spanglechick]

I often wonder how many people would be eating meat if they had to kill the animal themself.

well i probably wouldn't, but i'd probably starve if i had to produce any food myself because i work a 60+hour week and sleep all weekend.

but could i do it? yeah. i'm pretty content with my position in the food chain. i wouldn't kill animals for jollies, but i'm not sentimental. perhaps never really having done the whole pet thing properly has contributed to that.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

i am certainly not nice and haven't claimed to be

Was that even an issue?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

and you know full well that no one else on here does so maybe think about that when asserting the "correct" answer

How the fuck would I know whether or not the word 'steer' is used in Britain?

Grab a brain.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm sorry, but this cracks me up - he expressed no preference, It's a cat.

cats express preferences.

 

[Greebo]

cats express preferences.

As Bakunin is only too aware...

 

[Santino]

As a meat-eater, I think the argument that it's ok to kill animals because otherwise they would not even have been born, is utterly utterly asinine.

 

[Spymaster]

You suggest that are some ways of killing animals you find "unacceptable", suggesting you wouldnt accept it... do you feel like you have any idea what death an animal you eat has had? I'd hedge my bets it was even the animal it said on the packaging, never mind if it had been killed in some kind of blissful stress-free way. The only way you can know is to see it for yourself.

We're often in the situation of having to trust others when it comes to what we consume. You do what you can to find a balance with which you're personally comfortable. In the case of meat it comes down building a relationship with a butcher that you trust, or in supermarkets looking for "free range", "organic", "grass fed", "freedom food"; avoiding cheap poultry etc, etc.

Of course it's not foolproof but I take a similar view to that of Muslims when buying halal products. We should do the best that WE can to uphold our principles and if someone cheats or tricks us then the sin is theirs, not ours.

I'm by no means infallible either. I have a weakness for the occasional Big Mac and often eat in restaurants or at friends homes where I've no idea where the meat came from.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

As a meat-eater, I think the argument that it's ok to kill animals because otherwise they would not even have been born, is utterly utterly asinine.

You have a field. You plant a crop in it and grow wheat to make bread. You sell the bread.

You have a field. You graze sheep on it and kill the lambs. You sell the meat.

You have a need to make an income from your field. That income has to come from harvesting the thing that grows on it - either the crops or the livestock. Is it really morally better for the sheep never to exist than for you to farm them for their meat? Why? On what moral basis?

 

[Santino]

You have a field. You plant a crop in it and grow wheat to make bread. You sell the bread.

You have a field. You graze sheep on it and kill the lambs. You sell the meat.

You have a need to make an income from your field. That income has to come from harvesting the thing that grows on it - either the crops or the livestock. Is it really morally better for the sheep never to exist than for you to farm them for their meat? Why? On what moral basis?

Are you morally obliged to have as many children as you can?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Are you morally obliged to have as many children as you can?

You have this the wrong way around. I'm not saying that a farmer is morally obliged to keep animals. I'm asking what is morally wrong about doing so. What is morally better about not doing so?

 

[Santino]

Is there a moral difference between killing an animal you've bred and one you've hunted?

 

[girasol]

Everyone seems to be ignoring the very important point that red meat is resource intensive and that we should eat less of it for that reason alone. I made that point early and I shall make it again - this is very important.

Not saying we should all become vegetarians, but not only for health reasons (takes a long time to digest red meat, to much of it is bad for you), and also for environmental reasons, we need to consume less of it.

hehe, check out my attention grabbing bigger font, I bet it will still get ignored...

 

[Dr_Herbz]

Are you morally obliged to have as many children as you can?

and kill them at 6 months old...

 

[Santino]

and kill them at 6 months old...

Surely that's better than them not existing at all.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Everyone seems to be ignoring the very important point that red meat is resource intensive and that we should eat less of it for that reason alone. I made that point early and I shall make it again - this is very important.

True. Although against that must be placed the point that some land is no good for anything other than grazing animals. The Welsh hills are good for hardy hill sheep but not much else.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

Surely that's better than them not existing at all.

Apparently...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Surely that's better than them not existing at all.

Is it morally better to grow wheat than to keep sheep? If so, why? On what basis?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

As a meat-eater, I think the argument that it's ok to kill animals because otherwise they would not even have been born, is utterly utterly asinine.

What do you think is a better argument?

 

[girasol]

True. Although against that must be placed the point that some land is no good for anything other than grazing animals. The Welsh hills are good for hardy hill sheep but not much else.

The rain forest and vast areas of Brazil are (were) good for a lot more than feeding cows

edit: some graphs http://kanat.jsc.vsc.edu/student/lind/main.htm

 

[andysays]

You have a field. You plant a crop in it and grow wheat to make bread. You sell the bread.

You have a field. You graze sheep on it and kill the lambs. You sell the meat.

You have a need to make an income from your field. That income has to come from harvesting the thing that grows on it - either the crops or the livestock. Is it really morally better for the sheep never to exist than for you to farm them for their meat? Why? On what moral basis?

Something else which needs to be factored into this discussion is the fact that many of the "fields" on which sheep currently graze are not suitable for arable farming, they're too hilly, not fertile enough or whatever.

In fact, most of the land in Britain which could be efficiently used for growing crops already is, so it's not simply a choice between grazing livestock and growing crops, it's often a choice between grazing livestock and not producing any food at all.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The rain forest and vast areas of Brazil are (were) good for a lot more than feeding cows

Sure. And more than growing soya, too.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

Is it morally better to grow wheat than to keep sheep? If so, why? On what basis?

No it isn't... but it's morally better to kill wheat than it is to kill sheep.