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
m (Greg.Fuller moved page Staged Talk:It iss OK to eat animals that have been treated well - I only eat certified humane, pasture-raised, cage-free, free-range products to [[Staged Talk:It is OK to eat animals that have been treated well - I only eat...)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
 
+
{{jfa-expand | Outline stored here for safekeeping }}
 +
<ul>
 +
    <li>Context.
 +
        <ul>
 +
            <li>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.
 +
            </li>
 +
            <li>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.
 +
            </li>
 +
            <li>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.
 +
            </li>
 +
            <li>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.
 +
            </li>
 +
        </ul>
 +
    </li>
 +
    <li>Animals are harmed by depriving them of their lives.
 +
        <ul>
 +
            <li>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.<ref>Bekoff, Mark, Colin Allen, and Gordon Burghardt. ''The Cognitive Animal: Empirical and
 +
                    Theoretical Perspectives on Animal Cognition''. A Bradford Book, 2002 </ref>
 +
            </li>
 +
            <li>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.
 +
            </li>
 +
            <li>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.
 +
            </li>
 +
            <li>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.
 +
                <ul>
 +
                    <li>Details: Age of Animals Slaughtered vs. Natural Life Span.
 +
                        <ul>
 +
                            <li>Note
 +
                                <ul>
 +
                                    <li>The equivalent human age was calculated based on an 80-year human life span.
 +
                                    </li>
 +
                                </ul>
 +
                            </li>
 +
                            <li>Broiler Chickens
 +
                                <ul>
 +
                                    <li>Natural Life Span: 8 years</li>
 +
                                    <li>Age at Slaughter: 5–7 weeks</li>
 +
                                    <li>Percentage of Life Lived: &lt; 1.2%</li>
 +
                                    <li>Equivalent Human Age at Slaughter: 1 year</li>
 +
                                </ul>
 +
                            </li>
 +
                            <li>Laying Hens
 +
                                <ul>
 +
                                    <li>Natural Life Span: 8 years</li>
 +
                                    <li>Age at Slaughter: 18 months</li>
 +
                                    <li>Percentage of Life Lived: &lt; 18.75%</li>
 +
                                    <li>Equivalent Human Age at Slaughter: 15 years</li>
 +
                                </ul>
 +
                            </li>
 +
                            <li>Beef Cows
 +
                                <ul>
 +
                                    <li>Natural Life Span: 15–20 years</li>
 +
                                    <li>Age at Slaughter: 18 months</li>
 +
                                    <li>Percentage of Life Lived: 7.5%</li>
 +
                                    <li>Equivalent Human Age at Slaughter: 6 years</li>
 +
                                </ul>
 +
                            </li>
 +
                            <li>Dairy Cows
 +
                                <ul>
 +
                                    <li>Natural Life Span: 15–20 years</li>
 +
                                    <li>Age at Slaughter: 4 years</li>
 +
                                    <li>Percentage of Life Lived: 20%</li>
 +
                                    <li>Equivalent Human Age at Slaughter: 16 years</li>
 +
                                </ul>
 +
                            </li>
 +
                            <li>Pigs
 +
                                <ul>
 +
                                    <li>Natural Life Span: 10–12 years</li>
 +
                                    <li>Age at Slaughter: 5–6 months</li>
 +
                                    <li>Percentage of Life Lived: 3%</li>
 +
                                    <li>Equivalent Human Age at Slaughter: 3 years</li>
 +
                                </ul>
 +
                            </li>
 +
                            <li>Source<ref>Age of Animals Slaughtered.” Accessed February 23, 2018.
 +
                                http://www.aussieabattoirs.com/facts/age-slaughtered </ref>
 +
                            </li>
 +
                        </ul>
 +
                    </li>
 +
                </ul>
 +
            </li>
 +
            <li>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.
 +
            </li>
 +
            <li>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.
 +
            </li>
 +
        </ul>
 +
    </li>
 +
    <li>Humane-sounding labels and certifications are mostly meaningless.
 +
        <ul>
 +
            <li>Context.
 +
                <ul>
 +
                    <li>Here we address the most common labels and certifications. Some labels and certifications cover
 +
                        some forms of abuse, and others cover different forms of abuse, but none address all forms of
 +
                        abuse. But even if they did, the standards are often not enforced.
 +
                    </li>
 +
                </ul>
 +
            </li>
 +
            <li>Free-Range.
 +
                <ul>
 +
                    <li>The USDA standard for ''free-range'' requires only that chickens are given some access to the
 +
                        outdoors. There are no stipulations for the size or quality of the outdoor space, and there is
 +
                        no requirement that the chickens actually spend time outdoors.<ref>“FSIS.” Food Safety Inspection
 +
                            Service, USDA,
 +
                            http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/food-labeling/meat-and-poultry-labeling-terms</ref>
 +
                        Also, the claim does not have to be verified through inspections.<ref>“What Does ‘Free Range’
 +
                            Mean?” Greener Choices | Consumer Reports, April 25, 2017.
 +
                            http://greenerchoices.org/2017/04/25/free-range/ </ref>
 +
                    </li>
 +
                    <li>So it's not surprising that investigations by Consumer Reports (and others) reveal that most
 +
                        chickens labeled ''free-range'' spend their lives confined inside a crowded chicken house.
 +
                        The free-range space itself may be nothing more than an enclosed concrete slab that the chickens
 +
                        never use. These individuals lack the room even to turn around, much less engage in their
 +
                        natural behaviors of preening, nesting, foraging, dust bathing, and perching.<ref>“What Does ‘Free
 +
                            Range’ Mean?” Greener Choices | Consumer Reports, April 25, 2017.
 +
                            http://greenerchoices.org/2017/04/25/free-range/ </ref>
 +
                    </li>
 +
                    <li>This has led Consumer Reports to say that "'free range''''' is one of the most potentially
 +
                        misleading labels because of the discrepancy between what it implies and what is required to
 +
                        make the claim."<ref>“What Does ‘Free Range’ Mean?” Greener Choices | Consumer Reports, April 25,
 +
                            2017. http://greenerchoices.org/2017/04/25/free-range/ </ref>
 +
                    </li>
 +
                    <li>Extra.
 +
                        <ul>
 +
                            <li>Only one percent of eggs are from ''free-range'' hens that have the option to go
 +
                                outdoors, but like the other 99 percent, even those hens have likely never actually been
 +
                                outdoors.<ref>“A Hen’s Space to Roost.” New York Times, August 15, 2010.
 +
                                    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/weekinreview/20100815-chicken-cages.pdf </ref>
 +
                            </li>
 +
                            <li>Jonathan Foer, in his well-researched and fact-checked book<ref>Yonan, Joe. “Book Review:
 +
                                Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer,” November 22, 2009.
 +
                                http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112001684.html</ref> ''Eating
 +
                                Animals'', sums it up well in saying that "the free-range label is bullshit" and
 +
                                "should provide no more peace of mind than 'all-natural,' 'fresh,' or 'magical.'"<ref>Foer,
 +
                                    Jonathan Safran. Eating Animals. Little, Brown, 2009, 102 </ref>
 +
                            </li>
 +
                        </ul>
 +
                    </li>
 +
                </ul>
 +
            </li>
 +
            <li>Cage Free.
 +
                <ul>
 +
                    <li>Consumer Reports advises you to “ignore cage-free claims” for chickens.<ref>“A ‘Cage-Free’ Claim:
 +
                        Does It Add Value?” Greener Choices |Consumer Reports, March 5, 2018
 +
                        http://greenerchoices.org/2018/03/05/cage-free-add-value/ </ref> "'Cage-free' does not mean the
 +
                        chickens had access to the outdoors." It only means the chickens were not confined to a
 +
                        cage.<ref>What Does ‘Cage Free’ Mean?” Greener Choices | Consumer Reports, February 6, 2017.
 +
                            http://greenerchoices.org/2017/02/06/cage-free-mean/ </ref>
 +
                    </li>
 +
                    <li>''Cage free'' chickens, like ''free-range'' chickens, may be confined not by a cage but by
 +
                        crowding so extreme that turning around and engaging in those previously mentioned natural
 +
                        behaviors of preening, nesting, foraging, dust bathing, and perching is difficult or impossible.
 +
                        Such extreme crowding in large metal warehouses is the norm, with each chicken allowed less than
 +
                        a square foot of space.<ref>ibid.</ref>
 +
                    </li>
 +
                    <li>Extra.
 +
                        <ul>
 +
                            <li>Other conditions inside the warehouses add to the misery of the confined birds. To
 +
                                mention only one, for brevity's sake: the ammonia-laden air in the chicken houses is so
 +
                                noxious that the birds commonly suffer respiratory disorders, severe flesh and eye
 +
                                burns, and even blindness.<ref>“Ammonia Toxicity in Chickens.” PoultryDVM. Accessed October
 +
                                    25, 2018. http://www.poultrydvm.com/condition/ammonia-burn </ref>
 +
                            </li>
 +
                        </ul>
 +
                    </li>
 +
                </ul>
 +
            </li>
 +
            <li>Pasture Raised.
 +
                <ul>
 +
                    <li>According to Consumer Reports, “government agencies have no common standard that producers have
 +
                        to meet to make a 'pasture raised' claim on a food label, no definition for ‘pasture,’ and no
 +
                        requirement for the claim to be verified through on-farm inspections.”<ref>“Pasture Raised” Greener
 +
                            Choices | Consumer Reports, April 4, 2017, http://greenerchoices.org/2017/04/26/pasture-raised/
 +
                        </ref>
 +
                    </li>
 +
                </ul>
 +
            </li>
 +
            <li>Grass Fed.
 +
                <ul>
 +
                    <li>The USDA-regulated ''grass fed'' label in the United States requires that the bovine is fed
 +
                        grass their entire life. The designation has only to do with feeding and does not prohibit
 +
                        routine cruelties, such as dehorning, castration, confinement, harsh living conditions, rough
 +
                        handling, and lack of veterinary care.
 +
                    </li>
 +
                    <li>Enforcement is weak,<ref>“Labeling Guideline on Documentation Needed to Substantiate Animal Raising
 +
                        Claims for Label Submissions.” USDA FSIS, n.d.
 +
                        https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/bf170761-33e3-4a2d-8f86-940c2698e2c5/Label-Approval-Guide.pdf?MOD=AJPERES</ref>
 +
                        and the animals are still slaughtered at an early age.<ref>Whisnant, DVM, Patricia. “FAQ Grass Fed
 +
                            Beef.” American Grass Fed Beef (blog). Accessed October 25, 2018.
 +
                            https://www.americangrassfedbeef.com/faq-grass-fed-beef.asp </ref>
 +
                        <ul>
 +
                            <li>Details: Enforcement.
 +
                                <ul>
 +
                                    <li>Enforcement is weak. The regulation states that "the addition of the grass
 +
                                        fed claim for products formulated with grass fed beef is a type of claim that
 +
                                        can be approved through a request for blanket approval." This means that an
 +
                                        on-site audit is not required. Instead, the producer must submit documentation
 +
                                        to FSIS, the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service.<ref>“Labeling Guideline on
 +
                                            Documentation Needed to Substantiate Animal Raising Claims for Label
 +
                                            Submissions.” USDA FSIS, n.d.
 +
                                            https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/bf170761-33e3-4a2d-8f86-940c2698e2c5/Label-Approval-Guide.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
 +
                                        </ref>
 +
                                    </li>
 +
                                </ul>
 +
                            </li>
 +
                            <li>Details: Age of Slaughter.
 +
                                <ul>
 +
                                    <li>While bovines that finish feeding with grain in a feedlot are slaughtered when
 +
                                        about one year old, ''grass fed'' animals are allowed to live no longer than
 +
                                        two years of their 15-to-20-year life span.<ref>Whisnant, DVM, Patricia. “FAQ Grass
 +
                                            Fed Beef.” American Grass Fed Beef (blog). Accessed October 25, 2018.
 +
                                            https://www.americangrassfedbeef.com/faq-grass-fed-beef.asp </ref>
 +
                                    </li>
 +
                                </ul>
 +
                            </li>
 +
                        </ul>
 +
                    </li>
 +
                </ul>
 +
            </li>
 +
            <li>Organic.
 +
                <ul>
 +
                    <li>Some have the perception that ''organic'' means humanely raised, but that is not the case.
 +
                        Organic farmers are free to treat their animals no better than non-organic farmers. This is
 +
                        because the USDA, which controls the ''organic'' label in the United States, ruled that the
 +
                        label does not allow "broadly prescriptive, stand-alone animal welfare regulations."<ref>Whoriskey,
 +
                            Peter. “Should ‘USDA Organic’ Animals Be Treated More Humanely? The Trump Administration Just
 +
                            Said No.” Washington Post, December 15, 2017.
 +
                            https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/15/should-usda-organic-animals-be-treated-more-humanely-the-trump-administration-just-said-no/
 +
                        </ref>
 +
                    </li>
 +
                    <li>Consumer Reports informs us that while there are organic standards relating to animals, they
 +
                        lack clarity and precision, letting producers with poor standards sell poultry and eggs.<ref>“Do
 +
                            You Care about Animal Welfare on Organic Farms?” Greener Choices | Consumer Reports, February 6,
 +
                            2018. http://greenerchoices.org/2018/02/06/care-animal-welfare-organic-farms/ </ref>
 +
                    </li>
 +
                </ul>
 +
            </li>
 +
            <li>Certified Humane Raised and Handled.
 +
                <ul>
 +
                    <li>Consumer Reports says that "we do not rate Certified Humane as a highly meaningful label for
 +
                        animal welfare, because the standards do not have certain requirements that a majority of
 +
                        consumers expect from a 'humanely raised' label, such as access to the outdoors."<ref>“Certified
 +
                            Humane Raised and Handled.” Consumer Reports—Greener Choices | Consumer Reports, January 30,
 +
                            2017. http://greenerchoices.org/2017/01/30/certified-humane/ </ref>
 +
                    </li>
 +
                </ul>
 +
            </li>
 +
            <li>Whole Foods's Global Animal Partnership (GAP) Certified.
 +
                <ul>
 +
                    <li>The Open Philanthropy Project criticized GAP for having weak enforcement and for providing only
 +
                        slight improvements over standard factory farming conditions.<ref>“Global Animal Partnership.” Open
 +
                            Philanthropy Project, March 26, 2016. <a
 +
                                    href="https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/us-policy/farm-animal-welfare/global-animal-partnership-general-support">https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/us-policy/farm-animal-welfare/global-animal-partnership-general-support
 +
                        </ref></a> For example, according to Consumer Reports, "standards for slaughter do not exist at
 +
                        any level for chickens and there is no limit on their rate of growth."<ref>“Global Animal
 +
                            Partnership Step 5+.” Greener Choices | Consumer Reports, May 23, 2017.
 +
                            http://greenerchoices.org/2017/05/23/global-animal-partnership-step-5/ </ref>
 +
                    </li>
 +
                    <li>GAP doesn't even publish standards for dairy cows, arguably the most abused of any of the farmed
 +
                        mammals.
 +
                    </li>
 +
                </ul>
 +
            </li>
 +
            <li>American Humane Certified.
 +
                <ul>
 +
                    <li>According to Consumer Reports, "the requirements fall short in meeting consumer expectations for
 +
                        a 'humane' label in many ways."<ref>“American Humane Certified.” Consumer Reports—Greener Choices |
 +
                            Consumer Reports, January 11, 2017.
 +
                            http://greenerchoices.org/2017/01/11/american-humane-certified/ </ref>
 +
                    </li>
 +
                </ul>
 +
            </li>
 +
            <li>United Egg Producers Certified.
 +
                <ul>
 +
                    <li>Consumer Reports says that while the label is verified, "it is not meaningful as an animal
 +
                        welfare label because certain basic conditions, such as the freedom to move, are not
 +
                        required."<ref>“United Egg Producers Certified.” Greener Choices | Consumer Reports, March 23,
 +
                            2017. http://greenerchoices.org/2017/03/23/united-egg-producers-certified/ </ref>
 +
                        <ul>
 +
                            <li>Details: Freedom to Move.
 +
                                <ul>
 +
                                    <li>According to Consumer Reports, "the UEP Certified guidelines allow continuous
 +
                                        confinement in crowded cages in dimly lit buildings without natural light and
 +
                                        fresh air. Hens only have to be given enough space to stand upright, with a
 +
                                        minimum space requirement of 8 by 8 inches for white laying hens kept in a cage.
 +
                                        Producers keeping their hens in cages do not have to allow the hens to move
 +
                                        freely, perch, dust bathe, or forage, and nest boxes are not required. While the
 +
                                        label is verified, it is not meaningful as an animal welfare label because
 +
                                        certain basic conditions, such as the freedom to move, are not
 +
                                        required."<ref>“United Egg Producers Certified.” Greener Choices | Consumer
 +
                                            Reports, March 23, 2017.
 +
                                            http://greenerchoices.org/2017/03/23/united-egg-producers-certified/ </ref>
 +
                                    </li>
 +
                                </ul>
 +
                            </li>
 +
                        </ul>
 +
                    </li>
 +
                </ul>
 +
            </li>
 +
            <li>USDA Process Verified.
 +
                <ul>
 +
                    <li>According to Consumer Reports, ''Process Verified'' claims can be written by the
 +
                        manufacturers themselves—and the claims do not have to be meaningful to the welfare of the
 +
                        animals.<ref>“USDA Process Verified.” Greener Choices | Consumer Reports, March 7, 2017.
 +
                            http://greenerchoices.org/2017/03/07/usda-process-verified/ </ref>
 +
                        <ul>
 +
                            <li>Details: Process Verified.
 +
                                <ul>
 +
                                    <li>Consumer Reports says, "the USDA Process Verified shield means that one or more
 +
                                        of the claims made on the label have been verified by the U.S. Department of
 +
                                        Agriculture. Both the claim and the standard behind the claim can be written by
 +
                                        the company; the USDA only verifies whether the standard has been met, not
 +
                                        whether the claim is a meaningful one. The label adds credibility to meaningful
 +
                                        claims like 'no antibiotics, ever,' but also allows for claims with lower
 +
                                        standards that mostly reflect the existing industry norm and add little value,
 +
                                        such as 'raised without growth-promoting antibiotics.'”<ref>ibid.</ref>
 +
                                    </li>
 +
                                </ul>
 +
                            </li>
 +
                        </ul>
 +
                    </li>
 +
                </ul>
 +
            </li>
 +
            <li>Animal Welfare Approved.
 +
                <ul>
 +
                    <li>This is the only certification that Consumer Reports says has strong standards, yet the
 +
                        standards still allow for mutilations<ref>“Animal Welfare Approved.” Greener Choices |Consumer
 +
                            Reports, November 16, 2016. http://greenerchoices.org/2016/11/16/awa-label-review/ </ref> and other
 +
                        injustices.
 +
                    </li>
 +
                    <li>Also, products with this label are challenging to find. A search using their own product finder
 +
                        reveals that it's unlikely you will find any products with this label at a grocery store near
 +
                        you.<ref>“Find Products.” A Greener World. Accessed October 4, 2018.
 +
                            https://agreenerworld.org/shop-agw/product-search/ </ref>
 +
                    </li>
 +
                </ul>
 +
            </li>
 +
            <li>Certified Sustainable Seafood.
 +
                <ul>
 +
                    <li>Sustainability has nothing to do with the treatment of the fish. Fish typically die of
 +
                        suffocation because they are left in the air, or they die by having their throats slit while
 +
                        they are alive. Although our concern for fish is typically less than it is for other animals,
 +
                        research in cognitive ethology and neurobiology reveals that fish show intelligence, feel pain,
 +
                        display emotions, and have many of the other characteristics of the land animals we use for
 +
                        food.<ref>Balcombe, Jonathan. What a Fish Knows: The Inner Lives of Our Underwater Cousins.
 +
                            Scientific American / Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016. </ref>
 +
                    </li>
 +
                    <li>Not only that, but the sustainability claim itself is suspect. In a piece titled "Is
 +
                        Sustainable-Labeled Seafood Really Sustainable?" NPR reports that scientists and other experts
 +
                        believe fisheries are being certified that should not be. In addition, fish are being
 +
                        incorrectly counted, rendering the claims of sustainability doubtful.<ref>“Is Sustainable-Labeled
 +
                            Seafood Really Sustainable?” NPR.org, February 11, 2013. <a
 +
                                    href="https://www.npr.org/2013/02/11/171376509/is-sustainable-labeled-seafood-really-sustainable">https://www.npr.org/2013/02/11/171376509/is-sustainable-labeled-seafood-really-sustainable</a></ref>
 +
                    </li>
 +
                </ul>
 +
            </li>
 +
            <li>Backyard Chickens.
 +
                <ul>
 +
                    <li>Although backyard chickens are not associated with a certification or label like the others that
 +
                        we are covering here, they deserve a closer look. A considerable number of people regard the
 +
                        practice of keeping chickens in the backyard for food as innocuous. These backyard chickens are
 +
                        of the same or similar variety as those on industrial farms—the very farms that account for most
 +
                        of the cruelties outlined below.
 +
                    </li>
 +
                    <li>Baby chicks often die in transport. A quick search will find numerous reports of chicks being
 +
                        shipped alive to backyard hobbyists and dying in transport—and reports of those that make it
 +
                        being greatly stressed.
 +
                    </li>
 +
                    <li>Backyard chickens, like those on industrial farms, have been selectively bred, which stresses
 +
                        their bodies. Here are just a few examples out of many:
 +
                        <ul>
 +
                            <li>Laying hens are bred to lay large eggs, which stresses their reproductive systems and
 +
                                causes such problems as osteoporosis, bone breakage, and uterus prolapse.<ref>Jamieson,
 +
                                    Alastair. “Large Eggs Cause Pain and Stress to Hens, Shoppers Are Told,” March 11, 2009,
 +
                                    sec. Finance.
 +
                                    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/4971966/Large-eggs-cause-pain-and-stress-to-hens-shoppers-are-told.html
 +
                                </ref>
 +
                            </li>
 +
                            <li>Another stressor for laying hens is the number of their eggs, which is the result of
 +
                                selective breeding. A laying hen produces more than 300 eggs a year, but the jungle fowl
 +
                                from which they are bred lay 4 to 6 eggs in a year.<ref>Cheng, H.-W. “Breeding of
 +
                                    Tomorrow’s Chickens to Improve Well-Being.” Poultry Science 89, no. 4 (April 1, 2010):
 +
                                    805–13. <a href="https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2009-00361">https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2009-00361
 +
                                </ref></a></li>
 +
                            <li>Chickens used for meat have been bred to grow at an unnaturally fast rate and have large
 +
                                breasts. This selective breeding comes with serious welfare consequences: leg disorders;
 +
                                skeletal, developmental, and degenerative diseases; heart and lung problems; respiratory
 +
                                problems; and premature death.<ref>Stevenson, Peter. “Leg and Heart Problems in Broiler
 +
                                    Chickens.” Compassion in World Farming, January 2003.
 +
                                    https://www.ciwf.org.uk/media/3818898/leg-and-heart-problems-in-broilers-for-judicial-review.pdf
 +
                                </ref>
 +
                            </li>
 +
                        </ul>
 +
                    </li>
 +
                    <li>In the hatcheries from which backyard chicken hobbyists order baby chicks, the males are either
 +
                        ground alive in macerators, gassed, or smothered to death soon after they are hatched. This is
 +
                        because the laying hens are selectively bred for producing eggs, not meat, rendering the males
 +
                        useless for their intended purpose.<ref>Blakemore, Erin. “Egg Producers Pledge More Humane Fate for
 +
                            Male Chicks.” Smithsonian, June 13, 2016.
 +
                            https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/egg-producers-pledge-more-humane-fate-male-chicks-180959394/
 +
                        </ref>
 +
                    </li>
 +
                    <li>Backyard hens are likely to be slaughtered when egg production wanes, preventing them from
 +
                        living out their natural lives. As one hobbyist euphemistically put it, "when the expenses
 +
                        outweigh the value, then changes have to be made."<ref>“At What Age Do You Kill a Laying Hen?”
 +
                            BackYard Chickens. Accessed November 2, 2018.
 +
                            https://www.backyardchickens.com/threads/at-what-age-do-you-kill-a-laying-hen.837302/ </ref>
 +
                    </li>
 +
                </ul>
 +
            </li>
 +
        </ul>
 +
    </li>
 +
    <li>Cruelty and suffering are systemic in using animals as commodities for profit.
 +
        <ul>
 +
            <li>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.
 +
            </li>
 +
            <li>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.
 +
            </li>
 +
            <li>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."<ref>Prescott, Matthew. “Your Pig Almost Certainly Came
 +
                    from a Factory Farm, No Matter What Anyone Tells You - The Washington Post,” July 15, 2014.
 +
                    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/15/your-pig-almost-certainly-came-from-a-factory-farm-no-matter-what-anyone-tells-you/
 +
                </ref>
 +
            </li>
 +
            <li>Here are a few specific examples of cruelty not covered earlier. These are allowed under many, if not
 +
                most, labels and certifications.
 +
                <ul>
 +
                    <li>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<ref>University of Veterinary
 +
                            Medicine, Vienna. (2015, April 28). Early separation of cow and calf has long-term effects on
 +
                            social behavior. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 26, 2018 from
 +
                            www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150428081801.htm </ref>
 +
                    </li>
 +
                    <li>Painful debeaking of chickens, depriving them of their ability to engage in preening and
 +
                        foraging<ref>Welfare Implications of Beak Trimming.” American Veterinary Medical Association,
 +
                            February 7, 2010.
 +
                            https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Pages/beak-trimming-bgnd.aspx^^“UPC
 +
                            Factsheet - Debeaking.” United Poultry Concerns, Inc. Accessed March 28, 2018.
 +
                            https://www.upc-online.org/merchandise/debeak_factsheet.html </ref>
 +
                    </li>
 +
                    <li>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)
 +
                    </li>
 +
                    <li>The dehorning of cows, which one professor of animal science calls "the single most painful
 +
                        thing we do,"<ref>Dehorning: ‘Standard Practice’ on Dairy Farms,” ABC News, January 28, 2010,</ref>
 +
                        done via acid, burning, sawing, or cutting with a gigantic clipper<ref>M’hamdi, Naceur, Cyrine
 +
                            Darej, and Rachid Bouraoui. “Animal Welfare Issues Concerning Procedures Of Calves Dehorning.”
 +
                            Department of Animal Sciences, National Institute of Agronomy of Tunisia and Hiher School of
 +
                            Agriculture of Mateur, Bizerte, Tunisia, 2013 </ref>
 +
                    </li>
 +
                    <li>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<ref>“Welfare Implications of Teeth Clipping, Tail Docking and Permanent Identification of
 +
                            Piglets.” American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), July 15, 2014. <a
 +
                                    href="https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Pages/Welfare-implications-of-practices-performed-on-piglets.aspx">https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Pages/Welfare-implications-of-practices-performed-on-piglets.aspx</a> </ref>
 +
                    </li>
 +
                </ul>
 +
            </li>
 +
        </ul>
 +
    </li>
 +
    <li>Humane-sounding labels and certifications may be best thought of as marketing.
 +
        <ul>
 +
            <li>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.
 +
            </li>
 +
            <li>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.
 +
            </li>
 +
        </ul>
 +
    </li>
 +
    <li>You cannot buy products made from animals that have been treated humanely.
 +
        <ul>
 +
            <li>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.
 +
            </li>
 +
            <li>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.
 +
            </li>
 +
            <li>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.
 +
            </li>
 +
        </ul>
 +
    </li>
 +
    <li>Meta
 +
        <ul>
 +
            <li>Contributors
 +
                <ul>
 +
                    <li>Greg Fuller — Author</li>
 +
                    <li>Isaac Nickerson — Copy Editor</li>
 +
                </ul>
 +
            </li>
 +
            <li>Revisions
 +
                <ul>
 +
                    <li>2018-11-07 Initial post completed —glf</li>
 +
                    <li>2018-11-16 First editing pass completed —isn</li>
 +
                    <li>2018-11-20 Published—glf</li>
 +
                </ul>
 +
            </li>
 +
        </ul>
 +
    </li>
 +
</ul>
 +
{{jfa-expand-end}}
 +
{{jfa-expand | footnotes}}
 +
<references />
 +
{{jfa-expand-end}}

Revision as of 01:45, 8 February 2019

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=1126"