I.... err... agree with fox.

[sandinista]

Another "No, it's not" member. Sheesh.

Come back when you have something to contribute, Sand.

right back at you

[sandinista]

meaning? or just going for a trollin'

oh, wait a minute, I should amend that. What you mean is, you don't agree with me and you figure the easiest way to show that is to attempt an insult. OK, makes sense.

What part of "same...same" refutes the clear distinction I made between deliberate, prolonged cruelty to animals, and the instant death granted to a food animal in any well-run meatworks?

If you wish to engage in meaningful debate, then marshall your arguments and let us examine them...

You made no clear distinction. You are arguing from a completely false premise that somewhere, somehow there is a slaughterhouse where there is no suffering. Absolute rubbish, fantasy world.

Slaughter houses would not be pleasant, but animals cannot brood over their coming fate, like a man on death row... They may be uneasy, but the finale is very quick indeed, as opposed the the long periods of pain and suffering that animal cruelty cases often involve, even forgetting the issue of intent. If you are familiar with the writings of Temple Grandin, you would have a better perspective on methods of killing animals for food that are designed to minimise suffering.

Anyway, if you see absolutely no difference between the deliberate infliction of prolonged pain to animals, and killing them for food with at least a conscious attempt to make the process quick and painless, then you should either be agitating for jail terms for abbatoir workers, or zero penalties for the forms of animal cruelty which uniformly attract detestation in the civilised world

But it's not in the slaughterhouse where the suffering occurs...it's in the the battery cages, gestation crates, and feedlots. If the animal is sick, they are thrown into a pile to die a slow, agonizing death...it's too expensive to try to rehabilitate it. Chickens can't stand on their own legs, they are too breast heavy, and they can't stretch their wings and engage in their natural behaviors. Pigs are trapped in gestation crates and can't even lie down? Baby chicks are thrown alive into grinders...I could go on and on about the torture factory farmed animals suffer. If you were to really compare the two, factory farming is even more horrible than what Michael Vick did, because hundreds of thousands more animals suffer. Neglect is also a form of abuse, just not as obvious or in your face as forcing animals to fight to the death.

of course factory farming is more cruel than what Vick did.

[Hermit]

But it's not the slaughterhouse where the suffering occurs...it's in the the battery cages, gestation crates, and feedlots. If the animal is sick, they are thrown into a pile to die a slow, agonizing death...it's too expensive to try to rehabilitate it. Chickens can't stand on their own legs, they are too breast heavy, and they can't stretch their wings and engage in their natural behaviors. Pigs are trapped in gestation crates and can't even lie down? Baby chicks are thrown alive into grinders...I could go on and on about the torture factory farmed animals suffer. If you were to really compare the two, factory farming is even more horrible than what Michael Vick did, because hundreds of thousands more animals suffer. Neglect is also a form of abuse, just not as obvious or in your face as forcing animals to fight to the death.

JimC did not make it explicit, but I think he is getting at the distinction between killing animals to satisfy a sadistic streak, to get thrills from seeing suffering brought about by intentionally brutal, and often prolonged processes leading to death, on the one hand, and the motivation behind keeping live food-stock in shocking conditions and inevitably killing the animals in the end, on the other. Real as the suffering of battery hens, pigs, and so forth is, it is not done for the enjoyment of the spectacle of suffering. Although the animals that are the victims are unaware of it, there is a categorical difference between the brutality committed for sadistic enjoyment and the suffering inflicted to make a living.

It's also worth pointing out that whereas everybody who buys eggs, pork, beef and so on which has not been raised free range - that is to say the vast majority of the industrialised countries' population - shares responsibility for the latter kind of cruelty, whereas only the perpetrators of gratuitous violence and cruelty and their tiny band of onlookers have a hand in the former.

[Trolldor]

And not mention that conditions are imposed because of the pressures of mass production in a commercial environment.

[maiforpeace]

But it's not the slaughterhouse where the suffering occurs...it's in the the battery cages, gestation crates, and feedlots. If the animal is sick, they are thrown into a pile to die a slow, agonizing death...it's too expensive to try to rehabilitate it. Chickens can't stand on their own legs, they are too breast heavy, and they can't stretch their wings and engage in their natural behaviors. Pigs are trapped in gestation crates and can't even lie down? Baby chicks are thrown alive into grinders...I could go on and on about the torture factory farmed animals suffer. If you were to really compare the two, factory farming is even more horrible than what Michael Vick did, because hundreds of thousands more animals suffer. Neglect is also a form of abuse, just not as obvious or in your face as forcing animals to fight to the death.

JimC did not make it explicit, but I think he is getting at the distinction between killing animals to satisfy a sadistic streak, to get thrills from seeing suffering brought about by intentionally brutal, and often prolonged processes leading to death, on the one hand, and the motivation behind keeping live food-stock in shocking conditions and inevitably killing the animals in the end, on the other. Real as the suffering of battery hens, pigs, and so forth is, it is not done for the enjoyment of the spectacle of suffering. Although the animals that are the victims are unaware of it, there is a categorical difference between the brutality committed for sadistic enjoyment and the suffering inflicted to make a living.

It's also worth pointing out that whereas everybody who buys eggs, pork, beef and so on which has not been raised free range - that is to say the vast majority of the industrialised countries' population - shares responsibility for the latter kind of cruelty, whereas only the perpetrators of gratuitous violence and cruelty and their tiny band of onlookers have a hand in the former.

I suppose...but ignorance, in my humble opinion anyway, isn't that huge of a distinction either if you put the real, humane treatment of animals at the other end of the spectrum. At the very least it's as lazy and thoughtless as being religious is.

Your Holiday Ham -- Raised on Suffering, Salmonella and Drugs?

David KirbyAuthor/Journalist
Posted: December 24, 2010 12:36 PM

This has been a rotten Christmas season for the American pork conglomerate Smithfield Foods.

Last week the Humane Society of the United States released a grisly report and undercover video on the disgusting treatment of pregnant sows at one of its industrial swine facilities in Virginia. And this week, Russia announced it will not buy pork products from the company's Smithfield, VA plant, because they are tainted with "residue and pathogen issues."

Pig producers who sell meat to Russia must wean their animals off antibiotics at least two weeks prior to slaughter (Japan requires a four-week flush-out period) and certify that their products contain no residue from the tetracycline antibiotic group, and no signs of generic Salmonella or Listeria monocytogenes, a highly virulent pathogen that kills up to one-third of the people infected and can also cause miscarriages.

On Monday Russia announced that, effective December 31st, it will no longer permit the import of pork products from the Smithfield plant in Virginia, as well as Tyson Foods' Waterloo, Iowa plant and Farmland Foods' Monmouth, Illinois plant.

It was a blow to the US pork export industry, which is still reeling from the swine flu disaster that wounded exports. In March of this year, Russia agreed to accept US pork again, as long as it was certified as free from the aforementioned drugs and pathogens.

It's not the first time a foreign country rejected US meat because of concerns over contaminants. For example, a truckload of beef was turned away at the Mexican border when inspectors found levels of copper (heavy metals are added to animal feed to prevent intestinal parasites) far in excess of Mexican safety standards. The meat was turned back and sold to consumers in the United States, where there are no standards for copper in beef.

Which begs the question, especially in this season of carnivorous indulgence: What do the Russians, Japanese and Mexicans know about our meat that we don't?

Smithfield produced 27% of all US pork products in 2007 and Tyson churned out another 17%, which you might keep in mind if you are buying ham, bacon or sausage this week. The animal you are eating could well have been born in a windowless piglet factory, where his mother was held prisoner in a tiny metal crate during pregnancy, then grief stricken as her still-nursing young were yanked away, before she was artificially impregnated once again.

Your young pig was then transferred to a nursery facility -- another sealed off building crammed with thousands of animals -- before ending up at a "finishing operation," where he was raised on concrete slats over pits filled with ammonia emitting excrement, and supplied a steady diet of drugs, heavy metals and other unnatural feed additives that accelerate growth and stave off disease long enough to get him to market weight.

There is also a small chance that your hog was infected with MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus), or drug-resistant staff infection. In 2005, nearly 100,000 Americans faced life threatening illness from MRSA and 18,650 died: 50 percent more than the number of AIDS death that year.

If you happen to bring infected fresh pork into your home, you really want to wipe down your work areas with extra caution, and don't expose cuts, or children, to the raw meat.

Happy Holidays.

I eat very little pork. Pigs are smart and, sorry to gross you out at Christmastime, Aztec nobles once informed their nauseated Spanish captors that pork tastes just like people. They couldn't get enough of the stuff.

But this year, I think I may just get myself some pig. I recently joined the Park Slope Food Coop, which carries a limited but wonderful and not horribly expensive selection of beef, chicken and pork grown on small, independent farms in the Hudson Valley and Catskill Mountains, where animals are raised on little but grass, grubs, sunlight and fresh air, all within a three hour drive of my home.

I've been to some of these thriving family farms, and I have seen how happy, healthy, and free the animals appeared. I have been to factory farms as well, and there is little comparison.

And though my humanely raised pork could still harbor Salmonella or Listeria (always handle all raw meat carefully) the chances are less likely. And I am thrilled there is no chance that my meat will contain drugs, added heavy metals, or any other little gift courtesy of the American pharmaceutical industry.

I'm picky that way, just like Russia.

[Trolldor]

Oh for fuck's... vaccines are there to prevent diseases. There is nothing wrong with giving Pigs vaccines just as I get my dog vaccinated.

And heavy added metals? Like what?

[JimC]

But it's not the slaughterhouse where the suffering occurs...it's in the the battery cages, gestation crates, and feedlots. If the animal is sick, they are thrown into a pile to die a slow, agonizing death...it's too expensive to try to rehabilitate it. Chickens can't stand on their own legs, they are too breast heavy, and they can't stretch their wings and engage in their natural behaviors. Pigs are trapped in gestation crates and can't even lie down? Baby chicks are thrown alive into grinders...I could go on and on about the torture factory farmed animals suffer. If you were to really compare the two, factory farming is even more horrible than what Michael Vick did, because hundreds of thousands more animals suffer. Neglect is also a form of abuse, just not as obvious or in your face as forcing animals to fight to the death.

JimC did not make it explicit, but I think he is getting at the distinction between killing animals to satisfy a sadistic streak, to get thrills from seeing suffering brought about by intentionally brutal, and often prolonged processes leading to death, on the one hand, and the motivation behind keeping live food-stock in shocking conditions and inevitably killing the animals in the end, on the other. Real as the suffering of battery hens, pigs, and so forth is, it is not done for the enjoyment of the spectacle of suffering. Although the animals that are the victims are unaware of it, there is a categorical difference between the brutality committed for sadistic enjoyment and the suffering inflicted to make a living.

It's also worth pointing out that whereas everybody who buys eggs, pork, beef and so on which has not been raised free range - that is to say the vast majority of the industrialised countries' population - shares responsibility for the latter kind of cruelty, whereas only the perpetrators of gratuitous violence and cruelty and their tiny band of onlookers have a hand in the former.

I agree! The argument about the treatment of livestock as it is raised is quite separate to the distinction I was making between deliberate animal cruelty and killing an animal for food. That distinction exists no matter what conditions they have to live in. However, it is also clear that it is possible to raise animals in relatively benign conditions (eg. free-range chickens), and use methods of slaughtering which are quick and minimize suffering. The food produced will cost more, but where I can obtain it, I am prepared to pay extra for livestock raised under better conditions. We always get free-range chickens and eggs, and lamb from producers we know.

[maiforpeace]

I posted that article more to reference the inhumane treatment of animals, in this case pigs, not the unnatural diets and all the drugs they are fed.

Oh for fuck's... vaccines are there to prevent diseases. There is nothing wrong with giving Pigs vaccines just as I get my dog vaccinated.

Yes, but do you eat your dog?

And heavy added metals? Like what?

Zinc, copper, nickel, lead, cadmium, arsenic, chromium and mercury are added to animal feeds to prevent intestinal parasites.

[eXcommunicate]

Thank spaghetti I'm not the only one that thinks there is a little hyperbole over this issue. People seem to enjoy throwing death around these days, especially conservatives (atheist or otherwise).

[Hermit]

...ignorance, in my humble opinion anyway, isn't that huge of a distinction either if you put the real, humane treatment of animals at the other end of the spectrum.

It's not a matter of ignorance at all. Most people are at least vaguely aware, for example, that the life of battery hens is horrible, compared to free-range chickens. Yet, going by what is actually being sold, they feel they can't afford free-range eggs. And I do think the distinction between cruelty for fun and cruelty out of (perceived) financial necessity is a huge one.

Our eggs, by the way, are home-delivered by these:



Unfortunately, we don't have the resources to keep cows or pigs, nor access to milk, beef, pork, leather shoes and so on that has been procured by slaughtering (and eventually slaughter is inevitably involved) happy animals. In the industrialised countries I think we are part of the vast community.

(I wonder where Sandinista gets his food and shoes from, by the way.

[maiforpeace]

Thank spaghetti I'm not the only one that thinks there is a little hyperbole over this issue. People seem to enjoy throwing death around these days, especially conservatives (atheist or otherwise).

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=21571

[JimC]

In general, vaccinations for various diseases would not create problems for food consumption; the amounts are tiny, and not a biohazard. It may well be that they are a reflection of overcrowded and insanitory indoor pens which make disease spread more rapidly, and animals under more natural conditions would not need them. In this sense, it may be a diagnostic symptom of poor living conditions.

The use of hormones to stimulate growth, and excess and automatic use of antibiotics are much more serious issues, for a variety of reasons, including the traces left in the meat, and the encouragement of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

I haven't heard of the heavy metals in the feed before. If this occurs in anymore than miniscule amounts, it should be strongly opposed. Even if the meat is not contaminated (and there are regulations governing amounts of such metals in food, I would be surprised if it were allowed in that case), then the animals waste itself could contaminate the soil and aquatic environments nearbye.

[maiforpeace]

I haven't heard of the heavy metals in the feed before. If this occurs in anymore than miniscule amounts, it should be strongly opposed. Even if the meat is not contaminated (and there are regulations governing amounts of such metals in food, I would be surprised if it were allowed in that case), then the animals waste itself could contaminate the soil and aquatic environments nearbye.

Jim, don't let your avatar see what's at the bottom of this link's page...

http://www.thefreewatereport.org/index. ... 8&Itemid=2

[Ian]

Good evening all. I just wanted to mention that I had some delicious kielbasa tonight.

Along with some wine...

[maiforpeace]

...ignorance, in my humble opinion anyway, isn't that huge of a distinction either if you put the real, humane treatment of animals at the other end of the spectrum.

It's not a matter of ignorance at all. Most people are at least vaguely aware, for example, that the life of battery hens is horrible, compared to free-range chickens. Yet, going by what is actually being sold, they feel they can't afford free-range eggs. And I do think the distinction between cruelty for fun and cruelty out of (perceived) financial necessity is a huge one.

Our eggs, by the way, are home-delivered by these:



Unfortunately, we don't have the resources to keep cows or pigs, nor access to milk, beef, pork, leather shoes and so on that has been procured by slaughtering (and eventually slaughter is inevitably involved) happy animals. In the industrialised countries I think we are part of the vast community.

(I wonder where Sandinista gets his food and shoes from, by the way.

Those are some gorgeous chickens, thriving and healthy!

Cheese that comes from pastured sources has been the hardest item for me to find...otherwise, I have been able to obtain pastured meat, eggs and dairy fairly easily. Of course it costs quite a bit more but I don't need that much any way.

Sandinista is from Canada, he probably hunts bison.