To get updates on new site content, like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter.

Difference between revisions of "Talk:In reply to: It is OK to eat animals that have been treated well; I only eat certified humane, pasture-raised, cage-free, free-range products"

From JFA Wiki
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
 +
 +
<hr />
 +
Do not write below this line
 +
<hr />
 +
{{jfa-expand| Plain Text stored here for safekeeping}}
 +
== Plain Text ==
 +
 +
People are becoming increasingly concerned about the welfare of animals used for food. This concern is spawned by undercover videos, social-media postings, documentary movies, and reporting by the press.
 +
 +
Some people hope to act on that concern by buying products that bear one of the humane-certification labels or that brandish some other designation, such as "cage free," "free-range," "grass fed," or "organic," thinking that such purchases cause little or no harm to the individuals whose flesh and secretions have been packaged for sale.
 +
 +
First, we explain why—even if specific humane claims are true—using animals for food is still not humane. Because using animals for food is still not humane, it's not necessary to show that the humane-sounding labels and certifications are misleading. But we do so anyway just so there can be no doubt. We also reveal that cruel practices are systemic to the process of using animals for food.
 +
 +
After the evidence is presented, it's easy to conclude that these labels have little to do with the well-being of the animals but are designed to at once assuage our guilt and compel us to spend more.
 +
 +
ANIMALS ARE HARMED BY DEPRIVING THEM OF THEIR LIVES
 +
 +
Research by cognitive ethologists and neurobiologists has confirmed that the animals we exploit for food, including fish, have desires, preferences, and emotions. They have a sense of themselves, a sense of the future, and a will to live. They have families, social communities, and natural behaviors.
 +
 +
In these ways and others, they are like us, and what happens to them matters to them. They each have an inherent value apart from their usefulness to us. So even if humane-sounding labels were aboveboard, using animals for food is still not humane because we are depriving them of the only life they have and a life they value.
 +
 +
This is true no matter how the killing is done, and it is true not only for animals used for meat but also for animals used for dairy products and eggs. Those used for dairy and eggs, like those used for meat, are slaughtered very early in their lives. They are slaughtered when their reproductive systems are used up and they are no longer profitable. None of the animals we use for food are allowed to live out their lives.
 +
 +
Taking the life of anyone who wants to live is to harm that individual, regardless of their species. Just as we would not consider killing for food humane if it were done to dogs, cats, or humans, then by any measure of fairness and justice, it is not humane when done to other sentient beings.
 +
 +
Humane slaughter is an oxymoron. "Humane" means showing compassion or benevolence. To slaughter is to kill or butcher someone who does not want to die. Slaughter is a violent act, not an act of compassion or benevolence.
 +
 +
HUMANE-SOUNDING LABELS AND CERTIFICATIONS ARE MOSTLY MEANINGLESS
 +
 +
Labels such as "free-range" and "cage free," as well as various humane certifications, such as the Global Animal Partnership (GAP), have been called into question by Consumer Reports and others for lacking meaningful standards and adequate enforcement.
 +
 +
The labels and certifications that are addressed separately in the full article—and shown to embody spurious claims—include "free-range," "cage free," "pasture raised," "grass fed," "organic," "backyard" (chickens), Certified Humane, Global Animal Partnership (GAP), American Humane Certified, United Egg Producers Certified, USDA Process Verified, Animal Welfare Approved, and Certified Sustainable Seafood.
 +
 +
CRUELTY AND SUFFERING ARE SYSTEMIC IN USING ANIMALS AS COMMODITIES FOR PROFIT
 +
 +
The abuses inflicted on farmed animals are many and often severe, and they're part of the normal operations of exploiting animals for food. These abuses include confinement, crowding, mutilation, deprivation of natural behaviors, debilitating selective breeding, cruel handling, separation from their offspring, and, of course, slaughter.
 +
 +
Because many of the abuses are systemic, they cannot be humanely-labeled away. To be profitable, animal agriculture depends on animals being mistreated. For any label or certification to omit all animal abuses would render the products unaffordable by all but the most affluent.
 +
 +
The cruelty stems in part from the attitudes that surround the commodification of animals, as exemplified by a piece in Hog Management, which recommends that farmers "forget the pig is an animal—treat him just like a machine in a factory."
 +
 +
Here are a few specific examples of cruelty not covered earlier. These are allowed under many, if not most, labels and certifications.
 +
 +
—The early separation of calves from their mothers, depriving the calves of the love and milk of their mothers and depriving the grieving cow of her nurturing instinct
 +
 +
—Painful debeaking of chickens, depriving them of their ability to engage in preening and foraging
 +
 +
—Forcing a hesitant animal to move by any methods necessary, including whipping, prodding, dragging, and forklifting (the evidence for this can be seen in numerous videos and the several firsthand accounts in the book "Slaughterhouse" by Gail A. Eisnitz)
 +
 +
—The dehorning of cows, which one professor of animal science calls "the single most painful thing we do," done via acid, burning, sawing, or cutting with a gigantic clipper
 +
 +
–The clipping of teeth and tails of piglets, a painful procedure usually performed without medication and which may also result in infections, tumors, and the suppression of natural behaviors
 +
 +
HUMANE-SOUNDING LABELS AND CERTIFICATIONS MAY BEST BE THOUGHT OF AS MARKETING
 +
 +
The animal agriculture industry is aware of the growing concern for animals and know that if they appear to be uncaring, sales and profits will decline. They also know that few will examine these humane-sounding claims to see if they are true. So these labels and certifications give the appearance of being humane, assuaging the guilt of compassionate buyers.
 +
 +
They may also engender higher profits, because the industry also knows that concerned, kindhearted consumers are willing to pay more for products they perceive to be humanely produced.
 +
 +
YOU CANNOT BUY PRODUCTS MADE FROM ANIMALS THAT HAVE BEEN TREATED HUMANELY
 +
 +
Even if you buy into the idea that it’s OK to eat animal products as long as the animals are treated well, there is virtually no chance that the animals have, in fact, been treated well, regardless of what label is on the package. While certain labels may represent less suffering for some of the abuses, other abuses remain. The mitigation of some of the cruelties does not justify the remaining ones.
 +
 +
As we have shown and as exposed via Consumer Reports and other sources, the standards for these humane-sounding labels are weak and they often go unenforced.
 +
 +
The life of any farmed animal can only be described as one of commodified, abusive servitude ending in brutal slaughter. When viewed objectively, free from the fog of our cultural norms, their treatment and slaughter, no matter the label or certification—and by any standard of fairness and justice—cannot be considered humane.
 +
 +
{{jfa-expand-end}}
 +
 
{{jfa-expand | Outline stored here for safekeeping }}
 
{{jfa-expand | Outline stored here for safekeeping }}
 
<ul>
 
<ul>

Revision as of 01:53, 8 February 2019


Do not write below this line

Retrieved from "https://justiceforanimals.org/index.php?title=Talk:In_reply_to:_It_is_OK_to_eat_animals_that_have_been_treated_well;_I_only_eat_certified_humane,_pasture-raised,_cage-free,_free-range_products&oldid=1128"