What's going on Canada?
๐ Meta
๐บ๏ธ Provinces / Territories
๐๏ธ Cities / Local Communities
๐ Sports
Hockey
Football (NFL)
unknownFootball (CFL)
unknownBaseball
unknownBasketball
unknownSoccer
unknown๐ป Universities
๐ต Finance / Shopping
๐ฃ๏ธ Politics
๐ Social and Culture
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:
How about we just stop eating them? Jesus Christ, there's no such thing as "caring about animals", "animal welfare", and "humane treatment" when the goal is to breed and slaughter them.
Consumers are ultimately the ones in control here. Switch to plant-based and these companies will follow, because the only caring they do is for profits.
Excuse me sir, I don't appreciate you causing me mental discomfort by having to reevaluate the beliefs that I was raised with.
That's why I only eat cows that are organic, grassfed, and humanely treated. They get to live out their lives frolicking free in the fields due to the loosely defined "free range" requirements. Except for when they take a bolt gun to the head at a fraction of their lifespan but we don't like to think about that.
The carnist-compatible alternative is to just stop pretending to care about animal welfare.
Itโs a consistent moral position to say โanimals exist as my prey and their feelings donโt matter to meโ, but it directly conflicts with this hypocrisy where we act like baby farm animals and dogs and cats are soooo cute, and then we conveniently ignore everything that happens on the farm and downstream because it doesnโt suit that narrative.
What drives me absolutely crazy is when people willingly say โI donโt like to think about where my grocery store meat comes from!โ but continue to buy it.
Yup. Either come to terms with the fact that a sentient being had to die for this meal, or stop eating meat altogether.
It's actually why I'm getting into hunting now. I'm not taking a life for profit, like the slaughterhouses are. I'm taking a life for the food and materials it provides. And if I'm not comfortable killing with my own hands, I don't get to eat meat.
I really believe that buying meat at a grocery store is less ethical than hunting. If everytime someone wanted meat they had to kill an animal themselves, there would be a lot more vegetarians.
Why not just stop eating entirely then? Why continue to eat vegetables picked by poorly treated migrant workers? Why continue to eat grains covered in pesticides that pollute the local ground water?
Either commit to not partaking in any product that causes social issues, or get off your throne.
It's about reducing harm. Are all crops grown the way I would like? No. But farm animals also have to be fed these same crops, so when you eat meat you not only contributed to the animal cruelty and substantial amounts of the crop-harms you identified, while a vegetarian or vegan only contributed to a lesser amount of the crop-harms.
It's not practical to live without causing any harm somewhere, but that's not an excuse to pretend that all lifestyles are equally harmful.
animals are mostly fed plants or parts of plants that people can't or won't eat: cows graze on grass, or are fed silage which includes things like cotton seed and corn stalks. you can eat the corn and wear the cotton and eat the cow.
Maybe in some narrow cases but I'd take issue with your use of 'mostly'. Here's an article about a study that looked at the environmental damage of different diets and a vegan diet is significantly, significantly better for the environment - and that's not even considering animal welfare.
a vegan diet isn't any better for the environment at all. producing the parts of a vegan diet INSTEAD of the parts of some other diet WOULD be better but that's not what happens: the omnivorous products continue to be made in growing amounts while vegan products are ALSO increased.
that study depends on a number of other studies with dubious methodology. i wouldn't trust that study just based on the studies on which i know it relies.
The goal isn't perfection, but not eating animals is an easy step that we can all take, which prevents some of the worst suffering. It's also better for the planet, food security, etc.
The other points you make can already be mitigated, i.e. buy local, buy organic, grown your own, etc., but we should also strive to improve those situations overall.
Eating lower in the food chain is always going to be better than eating higher up. Farmed animals are eating those grains covered in pesticides, too, and at much higher quantities than we are.
So, not eating them remedies at least some part of your concerns.๐
not eating animals is an easy step that we can all take, which prevents some of the worst suffering
that doesn't prevent any suffering. if you want to prevent suffering, go to where there is suffering, and prevent it.
Pro tip: You can prevent suffering on farms by going to a grocery store and not buying animal products. Amazing, but true!
that doesn't work.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
All of A&W's pork now comes from pigs that aren't confined to crates, while Tim Hortons has pushed back its deadline for serving cage-free eggs, according to a new report scoring Canadian food companies on their commitments to animal welfare.
Foodtastic, the parent company of Milestones, and the Pita Pit, received a score of zero for failing to publish any animal welfare policies even though some of its brands have committed to them.
The company committed to cage-free eggs in 2016, and offered a $100,000 research grant to Farm & Food Care Canada to develop new housing options for egg-laying hens.
Those standards take into account things that affect animals' health and productivity, their emotional well-being and preferences, and their ability to engage in natural behaviours.
Widowski said that while science does support the move to raising animals with less confinement and environments that allow them to engage in more natural behaviours, such as scratching and perching for chickens, "none of these [transitions] are that easy to do."
Because the animals use more energy to exercise and less to produce eggs or meat, that can increase both the cost of raising them and their environmental footprint.
The original article contains 1,008 words, the summary contains 196 words. Saved 81%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
The scale should be:
-"Cares about animal welfare"
-"Doesn't care about animal welfare"
-"Abusive to animals"
You don't care about animal welfare if you kill them for profit, no matter how well you treat them otherwise.