The Student Room Group

cruelty free meat-would you eat it & why?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by viddy9

Even if this were true, we're still inflicting suffering on millions of nonhuman animals entirely unnecessarily.

I don't think it is true, though: factory farms won't even let you inside to look at them, and they produce the majority of the meat sold in the UK. Chickens are bred as fast as possible such that their legs collapse under their weight; female pigs are confined in farrowing crates for weeks at a time in which they can't even move their bodies; fish are an entirely separate matter and suffer immensely when being pulled out of the sea.


It's weird that I have been inside several then....

Chickens going off there legs is a disease process and birds that can't walk, aren't slaughtered. Because it's a disease process and treatment is administered. If numbers above a certain threshold are found, the farmer is investigated by the FSA

Farrowing crates are not ideal, I'll grant you that. They exist though because sows lie on there piglets.... in the dozens. I've been in an outdoor raised arc and seen some truly awful lying fatalities. They serve a purpose to help piglets survive and make it past the first week or so. After that they come out of crates, by law,

Fish being pulled out of the sea and varies with species and dispatch method, salmon for instance are humanely killed instantly. There are large numbers dying of asyphxation, which I'll accept is not animal welfare friendly.


Millions of animals in the meat industry die before they even reach the slaughterhouse. During the transportation, the journeys are often long and the animals are under a great deal of stress.


There's all manner of legislation that has to be kept to. Journeys longer than specific lengths have to be fully licensed with specific points to deliver water to animals. All DOA animals are accounted for and if above a threshold they are investigated by FSA and Trading Standards.

Again, this equates to millions upon millions of animals dying in intense pain every single year, entirely unnecessarily.


You pulled that 10-40% from thin air. Prove it. You are entirely false, the numbers that have problems during slaughter are tiny, all staff are trained and certificated and must regularly be retested, whilst they are continually inspected by a OV.


Would you be willing to allow humans to be confined, transported and slaughtered as they are in the meat industry today, even if a majority of them didn't suffer? If you think that intelligence somehow makes a being's suffering less important, let's say these humans have the same mental capacity as a nonhuman animal reared for meat (as some humans do).


This is a silly argument and there's no point arguing it further. Would you keep a human as a pet? Same logic as you've applied
Reply 61
Original post by Angry cucumber
You pulled that 10-40% from thin air. Prove it. You are entirely false, the numbers that have problems during slaughter are tiny, all staff are trained and certificated and must regularly be retested, whilst they are continually inspected by a OV.


I've added more citations for what I've said, including the 10-40% figures which are derived from numerous studies referenced in the study I cited.

Original post by Angry cucumber
This is a silly argument and there's no point arguing it further. Would you keep a human as a pet? Same logic as you've applied


If humans have an interest in not being pets (and almost all do), then of course not. I'd also see no reason to breed humans who don't have the capacity to make a decision as pets, just as I'd personally rather people didn't have animals as pets either, but the difference is that pets aren't treated as economic units: in the meat industry, nonhuman animals are.

Declaring it a silly argument isn't an argument. You have to explain why you'd have an ethical objection to treating humans that have a similar mental capacity to nonhuman animals in the ways in which we treat these animals in the meat industry.

As I said above, animal welfare legislation only goes as far as the industry will let it. Pigs wouldn't have to roll on their piglets at all, for instance, if they weren't being bred for meat in the first place.

You've said that a significant minority of animals reared for meat are in bad conditions, if not very bad conditions, for significant periods of their lives. I'd say that virtually all of the animals raised in factory farms have lives that aren't worth living: an often overlooked point is that while we look for signs of physical suffering, the animals are, through it all, being prevented from carrying out their natural instincts. Some animal welfare experts have said that many show signs of depression, if not extreme depression. Things can't be any better than what we see before our eyes, and they could be a lot worse. Regardless of which is the case, the fact is that we don't need to be rearing animals for meat at all, and it's complete madness to do so.

We wouldn't take these risks, as I say, with human infants or severely intellectually disabled humans; we wouldn't even keep dogs in these conditions if we weren't going to eat them, and that's exactly the point: we're doing all of this, and putting, at the very least, tens of millions of animals through terrible suffering every single year, to titillate our palates.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by viddy9
I've added more citations for what I've said, including the 10-40% figures which are derived from numerous studies referenced in the study I cited.



If humans have an interest in not being pets (and almost all do), then of course not. I'd also see no reason to breed humans who don't have the capacity to make a decision as pets, just as I'd personally rather people didn't have animals as pets either, but the difference is that pets aren't treated as economic units: in the meat industry, nonhuman animals are.

Declaring it a silly argument isn't an argument. You have to explain why you'd have an ethical objection to treating humans that have a similar mental capacity to nonhuman animals in the ways in which we treat these animals in the meat industry.

As I said above, animal welfare legislation only goes as far as the industry will let it. Pigs wouldn't have to roll on their piglets at all, for instance, if they weren't being bred for meat in the first place.

You've said that a significant minority of animals reared for meat are in bad conditions, if not very bad conditions, for significant periods of their lives. I'd say that virtually all of the animals raised in factory farms have lives that aren't worth living: an often overlooked point is that while we look for signs of physical suffering, the animals are, through it all, being prevented from carrying out their natural instincts. Some animal welfare experts have said that many show signs of depression, if not extreme depression. Things can't be any better than what we see before our eyes, and they could be a lot worse. Regardless of which is the case, the fact is that we don't need to be rearing animals for meat at all, and it's complete madness to do so.

We wouldn't take these risks, as I say, with human infants or severely intellectually disabled humans; we wouldn't even keep dogs in these conditions if we weren't going to eat them, and that's exactly the point: we're doing all of this, and putting, at the very least, tens of millions of animals through terrible suffering every single year, to titillate our palates.


Realistically you're not going to change my opinion and I'm not going to change yours.

Your post is full of half truths and "animal rights" propaganda. The one scientific paper you have is a swedish study and is a reasonably small study. So how that compares to Britain is anyones guess.

You've made your choice to be vegan thats fine by me, but I would argue that you should research farming practices further than animal rights groups who are well known for falsifying and distorting the truth for the "greater good".
You claimed that I said we can be cruel to them. I did not.
You claimed that I said they don't have interests. I did not say that either.

I think you misunderstood when I said that their interests don't concern me. I'm not saying that I don't care if they get treated cruelly. I'd much prefer they be treated humanely, and given the sort of space that you would truly expect from the term "free range."
Reply 64
Original post by Angry cucumber
Realistically you're not going to change my opinion and I'm not going to change yours.

Your post is full of half truths and "animal rights" propaganda. The one scientific paper you have is a swedish study and is a reasonably small study. So how that compares to Britain is anyones guess.

You've made your choice to be vegan thats fine by me, but I would argue that you should research farming practices further than animal rights groups who are well known for falsifying and distorting the truth for the "greater good".


I'm well aware of farming practices and the justifications given for them. The justifications you've given for "diseased legs", farrowing crates, asphyxiation of fish, and so on, rely on the notion that rearing animals for meat is necessary in the first place. Same goes for the justifications of tail docking and teeth clipping without anaesthetic. You've not addressed this, because you can't; similarly, you haven't addressed whether you'd be happy with humans with a similar mental capacity being treated in this manner, because you can't.

The notion that this is "animal rights propaganda" is bizarre: it's pretty hard to actually get into farms to film them in the first place, and this is what they've found on farm after farm after farm, and in slaughterhouse after slaughterhouse after slaughterhouse. The scientific paper I linked to also cites a number of other scientific papers, some of which have found that the slaughter process goes wrong in up to 35% of cases. This isn't just a single finding.

I'm not a vegan purist, by the way. If people don't want to eliminate their consumption of meat and animal products, reducing consumption is good too. There's even a name for it - reducetarian. Going lacto-vegetarian is also easier, in my experience, than going vegan.

Getting back to the topic of this thread, one would hope that, if and when cruelty-free cultured meat becomes available, even the "I like the taste of meat" rationalization will be dealt with.
(edited 7 years ago)
I probably would eat it, but not often. Meat isn't particularly healthy, no matter where it comes from or how ethically.

It strikes me that this would be an ethical way to obtain edible human meat. In fact that might even be slightly more ethical than supermeat that's grown from a cow or a pig because we can consent to the biopsy, where they can't.
Original post by viddy9
I'm well aware of farming practices and the justifications given for them. The justifications you've given for "diseased legs", farrowing crates, asphyxiation of fish, and so on, rely on the notion that rearing animals for meat is necessary in the first place. Same goes for the justifications of tail docking and teeth clipping without anaesthetic. You've not addressed this, because you can't; similarly, you haven't addressed whether you'd be happy with humans with a similar mental capacity being treated in this manner, because you can't.

The notion that this is "animal rights propaganda" is bizarre: it's pretty hard to actually get into farms to film them in the first place, and this is what they've found on farm after farm after farm, and in slaughterhouse after slaughterhouse after slaughterhouse. The scientific paper I linked to also cites a number of other scientific papers, some of which have found that the slaughter process goes wrong in up to 35% of cases. This isn't just a single finding.

I'm not a vegan purist, by the way. If people don't want to eliminate their consumption of meat and animal products, reducing consumption is good too. There's even a name for it - reducetarian. Going lacto-vegetarian is also easier, in my experience, than going vegan.

Getting back to the topic of this thread, one would hope that, if and when cruelty-free cultured meat becomes available, even the "I like the taste of meat" rationalization will be dealt with.


I'm guessing you're not a country dweller, have you been on many farms?
Reply 67
Original post by dingleberry jam
I'm guessing you're not a country dweller, have you been on many farms?


The majority of meat sold in the UK is factory-farmed. Factory farming exists for good economic reasons: to satisfy the insatiable demand for meat. The "idyllic" country farms out there simply can't meat the demand for meat. But, I'm in favour of people cutting out chicken, eggs, pigs and fish before cows, for whom welfare conditions can be better.

Nevertheless, I live right next to the countryside, and I have seen many farms (I've never been allowed in one) and what I've seen hasn't exactly impressed me. Cows being kept in sheds in enclosures with little space to roam was a regular occurrence. If you go to this link, and look at the video of a country farm at the bottom, taken by regular people walking through the countryside, the neglect is still clearly there, they're still often kept indoors with little space to roam. An incredibly thirsty cow has blood pouring from his head in this video; a sheep can be seen lying dead on the floor. And,this is before the transportation and slaughter process where, as I've documented, the slaughter process goes wrong in a significant proportion of cases.

Of course, the longer you raise cows and other animals, the greater the greenhouse gas emissions from the industry too. It's really a lose-lose situation.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by viddy9
The majority of meat sold in the UK is factory-farmed. Factory farming exists for good economic reasons: to satisfy the insatiable demand for meat. The "idyllic" country farms out there simply can't meat the demand for meat. But, I'm in favour of people cutting out chicken, eggs, pigs and fish before cows, for whom welfare conditions can be better.

Nevertheless, I live right next to the countryside, and I have seen many farms (I've never been allowed in one) and what I've seen hasn't exactly impressed me. Cows being kept in sheds in enclosures with little space to roam was a regular occurrence. If you go to this link, and look at the video of a country farm at the bottom, taken by regular people walking through the countryside, the neglect is still clearly there, they're still often kept indoors with little space to roam. An incredibly thirsty cow has blood pouring from his head in this video; a sheep can be seen lying dead on the floor. And,this is before the transportation and slaughter process where, as I've documented, the slaughter process goes wrong in a significant proportion of cases.

Of course, the longer you raise cows and other animals, the greater the greenhouse gas emissions from the industry too. It's really a lose-lose situation.


Can you define what a factory farm is?
Reply 69
Original post by Angry cucumber
Can you define what a factory farm is?


They're characterised by the confinement of the animals at high stocking density, often in barren and unnatural conditions. This is the case for most of the animals reared for meat in the UK.
I question whether it's more ethical on the grounds that human pastoral farming of animals has vastly increased the number of certain species, I would also hate to live in a world where swathes of farmland are bricked over and turned into cities.
Original post by viddy9
The majority of meat sold in the UK is factory-farmed. Factory farming exists for good economic reasons: to satisfy the insatiable demand for meat. The "idyllic" country farms out there simply can't meat the demand for meat. But, I'm in favour of people cutting out chicken, eggs, pigs and fish before cows, for whom welfare conditions can be better.

Nevertheless, I live right next to the countryside, and I have seen many farms (I've never been allowed in one) and what I've seen hasn't exactly impressed me. Cows being kept in sheds in enclosures with little space to roam was a regular occurrence. If you go to this link, and look at the video of a country farm at the bottom, taken by regular people walking through the countryside, the neglect is still clearly there, they're still often kept indoors with little space to roam. An incredibly thirsty cow has blood pouring from his head in this video; a sheep can be seen lying dead on the floor. And,this is before the transportation and slaughter process where, as I've documented, the slaughter process goes wrong in a significant proportion of cases.

Of course, the longer you raise cows and other animals, the greater the greenhouse gas emissions from the industry too. It's really a lose-lose situation.


You'd be happy to see the "idyllic" country farms go too? Not sure why you've put that in quotes. Odd you can't get in any, I've never had any problems, some are absolutely awful, for the animals and the workforce, others really are idyllic, with farmers that really care about animal welfare. I really think you should make more effort to get into a few farms.
Reply 72
Original post by dingleberry jam
You'd be happy to see the "idyllic" country farms go too? Not sure why you've put that in quotes. Odd you can't get in any, I've never had any problems, some are absolutely awful, for the animals and the workforce, others really are idyllic, with farmers that really care about animal welfare. I really think you should make more effort to get into a few farms.


Idyllic country farms are a bit more complicated. As I say, you're still risking a lot of unnecessary suffering during the transportation and slaughter process (suffering we wouldn't put human infants or severely intellectually disabled humans at risk of), and the meat that people buy could well come from the absolutely awful country farms that you speak of. In addition, greenhouse gas emissions from these farms are very high, and probably higher than those from factory farms.

However, I've long said that if one can go to a local farm and objectively assess the conditions in which the animals are kept, and buy meat from there, then I'm not really going to complain, as long as these people are vegan or at least lacto-vegetarian whenever they can't assess the conditions - when they're eating out, for instance.

It remains true, though, that unless people substantially reduce their meat consumption anyway, idyllic country farms will be the exception, not the rule (in terms of numbers of animals raised in them). If we all ate very little meat, but sourced it from the best farms, then the ethical waters would become murkier with respect to veganism. Until that time, for every meat-eater who doesn't substantially reduce their meat consumption, a vegan is, in essence, shouldering some of the extra burden.

My answer to your question would also depend on other considerations, such as how cattle grazing affects the populations of insects (I think insects are unlikely to suffer, but if they do there are billions of them, I think their lives aren't worth living for a variety of reasons, so I'd want to reduce their populations and prevent more from coming into existence). Research on this and related questions is still ongoing. But, overall, to give a straight answer to your question, I'd still currently want idyllic country farms to go out of business, but I'm not really as interested in them at the moment.
(edited 7 years ago)
**

* It is possible to be cruel, that is fact. Of course. Cruelty towards animals and people is sadly part of human history, perhaps part of human nature. Doesn't mean it's ok. This isn't contradictory.*

in your OP you said that it is against the interests of animals to be killed for meat, suggesting some awareness on their part. I'm not sure if that's what you meant but that's what I took from it. So when I say that it's irrelevant, that's what I was referring to. Not their general health and wellbeing etc etc.*
* * And if you didn't mean that then I misunderstood.

Either way, no contradiction. *
Where do you stand on animal testing for scientific purposed?*
Humans were designed to eat meat, IDGAF about morals. I don't empathise with cows enough to care enough about them not dying.
I thought super meat was meat made through science :colondollar: But I barely understand it so not really, if I did I wouldn't care. Meat is meat.
No I wouldn't. I've been vegetarian for so long that my tastes have completely changed & I'm not tempted to eat meat in the slightest. When I first went veggie I did miss the taste of meat for a while & if something like this ha been widely available at the time I'd definitely have wanted to try it. I hope producing meat in this way catches on though. Anything that could replace & put an end to factory farming & industrial mass slaughter can only be a good thing imo.

Quick Reply

Latest