Legislation For The Veg*an Ideal

[Andrew Gubb]

Forget forcing veg*nism on people with a tax or a ban which I agree is draconian and probably counter productive.

What if a government passed legislation that:

Removed subsidies on meat and the feed that goes into animal's mouths so that meat had a price that more accurately reflected its real cost?

Forced factory farms to respect animal welfare laws, and made no distinction between dogs and cats vs. food animals in terms of what's legal to do to them? (This would raise prices further, although no-one can say that the extra cost would be unfair).

Made a price addition to meat that would go towards offsetting its huge global warming impact? (Further making the price of meat reflect its real wider cost)

How much would meat cost then? Would people still eat meat like they do today?

I think all of these measures are fair. None of them can be considered invasive or autocratic. Cutting subsidies which serve no real purpose can even be considered less invasive than what is going on today.

I'd further want to make legislation to add labels to meat products rather like they do with cigarettes, e.g.:

- this meat was once a living, sentient animal
- this chicken lived 6 months, when its normal life span would have been 20 years
- For every pound of this shrimp you buy, 10 pounds of dead sea animals were thrown back into the water

People would find this invasive, because they find it uncomfortable, but I think bringing the truth to the surface can not be considered an invasion of anyone's rights. They do it for cigarettes and now alcohol is labelled with "drink responsibly". It seems to be a government's job to make sure that truth is available and not covered up by industry interests.

[Cochonette]

Most young Americans are cool with same-sex relationships/marriage, yet we can barely even pass legislation on that. With 97% of Americans eating meat pretty much every day, I think it's a bit premature to be thinking about legislating veganism.

[Andrew Gubb]

It's not intended to be practical in any way. Just one of those "what if..." conundrums that go through people's head sometimes.

Actually I think any talk about legislation that doesn't result in some sort of action is blatantly impractical. People like to think about "what if I controlled the laws" but in practise change doesn't result in that way.

[russianrocket]

sooo many assumptions. Prove global warming. Prove sentience.

While we are at it, lets charge extra for fruits and veggies that have to be shipped in, causing your "global warming". Or do you think they magically arrive at the store?

Also, cigarettes have those labels, because they are bad for the persons health. ( then again, you think so is meat, but that's not the reason you want those labels)

Ah, why am I even posting. This legislation is absolutely pointless to even think about.

and yeah, no distinction between cats and dogs, and cows. Time to make cat and dog farms too!

a chow chow, is called such, because they were bred for food.

Most cats and dogs, are bred for companionship. They are NOT like cows.

[JDuff]

I disagree with the last post to some extent. For example, we don't need to prove global warming. It is a fairly established world-wide scientific consensus that global warming/climate change is occurring. To anybody that does not believe, I ask what other established scientific consensuses do you not buy into? Do you believe in creationism and not evolution, or homoeopathy rather than the medication your doctor prescribes for various illnesses?

However, you do make a good point about the sourcing of produce from around the world, and the 'air miles' that it takes to get it to the local supermarket.

Ultimately, I do believe that legislation needs to be urgently passed to force humanity in the right direction, because incentives and trusting markets and people to "do the right thing" is doomed to end in failure. Change will not occur quickly enough that way. You cannot trust a corporation to "do the right thing." Another key is investment in green technology and so environmental investment should be at the heart of government policy.

So in summary, this legislation is certainly not pointless to think about. It may probably be the most important area of legislation for all of humanity at this point in time. People always bang on about the economy. But ultimately if we, as a generation and a species, wreck this planet for all beings to a large or even a small degree, that is a catastrophe that is far worse than having less choice of fruit, or having to stop driving big 4x4's, or having to stop polluting the environment etc. It's greed that stops progress being made - greed in the name of "business" and the economy. Sacrifices have to be made, and I believe the richest and the biggest causes of destruction - big corporations - should be forced to do the most.

[russianrocket]

As much as you people keep touting it, global warming, or to an extent, man made, is NOT a global scientific consensus. Few decades back, global cooling was a consensus. Unless you want to quote that poll they did awhile back with scientists, that tried to make it seem like majority of them agree. Let me know if you wanna quote it, so I can disprove it.

BIG difference between creation and evolution.

Also, you say don't trust people or corporations, yet you want to trust government, that is run by people, and paid for by corporations. Great logic there.

We've seen government investment in green energy, and we've seen those companies go bankrupt.

You still act like you, or the government knows the right direction to FORCE people to go into. You, and they, do not. Period.

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

- this chicken lived 6 months, when its normal life span would have been 20 years

This is a little inaccurate.

Without being bred solely for the purpose of eating them, the chickens/other animals never would have been born at all.

There are many domesticated animals that would probably be extinct by now if they were not bred for human consumption.

Whether that is a good or bad thing, you can decide your own opinion.

[Gabo]

Unfortunately, Andrew, I think most of your favored laws will find a lot of opposition, because it is hard to prove to people the reasoning behind them. Plus, people don't like to feel punished for eating what they want.

However, I think the first idea you had is a fantastic one. Meat, and wheat and corn (which go to feed animals), are heavily subsidized in the US. That is one of the reasons that we eat such a high amount of meat per capita, when compared to other countries. And even most meat eaters would agree that eating an excessive amount of meat can be detrimental to one's health.

Why continue giving huge subsidies to this industry, when it most certainly does not need them? People will continue to eat meat if it isn't subsidized, but we may eat less over all, which is probably better for our health.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Gabo

Unfortunately, Andrew, I think most of your favored laws will find a lot of opposition, because it is hard to prove to people the reasoning behind them. Plus, people don't like to feel punished for eating what they want.

However, I think the first idea you had is a fantastic one. Meat, and wheat and corn (which go to feed animals), are heavily subsidized in the US. That is one of the reasons that we eat such a high amount of meat per capita, when compared to other countries. And even most meat eaters would agree that eating an excessive amount of meat can be detrimental to one's health.

Why continue giving huge subsidies to this industry, when it most certainly does not need them? People will continue to eat meat if it isn't subsidized, but we may eat less over all, which is probably better for our health.

I'm all for that as well. It's not a new rule or forcing anyone to do anything.

[James Fletcher]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

Forced factory farms to respect animal welfare laws, and made no distinction between dogs and cats vs. food animals in terms of what's legal to do to them? (This would raise prices further, although no-one can say that the extra cost would be unfair).

Let's start by banning halal methods of slaughtering.

[Sfumato]

- For every pound of this shrimp you buy, 10 pounds of dead sea animals were thrown back into the water

Sorry this is utterly a Lie.

I may be in the academical world now, but I grew up on the Coast of Maine. I worked Lobster, Drag and Long Line when I was teen. If we through back a 10:1 we would go out of business. Also you fail to mention that the "sea animals" we toss back, or what most of the world calls "Bait" is dead fish parts or frozen bait fish people don't eat anyway.

Shrimp love rotting fish parts. Further, the greater damage being done to Maine's marine life comes from the harvesting of seaweed beds for vegan needs. Harvest a select number of fish or watch non-meat eaters propagate the destruction of the habitat of thousands of species of sea life.

[Andrew Gubb]

Originally Posted by Sfumato

- For every pound of this shrimp you buy, 10 pounds of dead sea animals were thrown back into the water

Sorry this is utterly a Lie.

I may be in the academical world now, but I grew up on the Coast of Maine. I worked Lobster, Drag and Long Line when I was teen. If we through back a 10:1 we would go out of business. Also you fail to mention that the "sea animals" we toss back, or what most of the world calls "Bait" is dead fish parts or frozen bait fish people don't eat anyway.

Shrimp love rotting fish parts. Further, the greater damage being done to Maine's marine life comes from the harvesting of seaweed beds for vegan needs. Harvest a select number of fish or watch non-meat eaters propagate the destruction of the habitat of thousands of species of sea life.

No lie. I got the figure from "Eating Animals". Sure they might be bait fish that people don't eat. That's the point. Gratuitous animal death - that's what people want to avoid. Or at least many do. They may be okay with killing one animal to eat it, but to kill 10 animals for every one they eat is something they'd be less comfortable wth.

Edit: this part of the book is available online. (ctrl+f and search for shrimp - it's the second instance of the word). About Eating Animals, the book - by Jonathan Safran Foer

You can take up your objection to the statistics with the author.

[Andrew Gubb]

Originally Posted by James Fletcher

Let's start by banning halal methods of slaughtering.

Are they worse?

[VinceG]

It would be kinda cool if all the unapologetic meat eaters were to go through a lifetime as a factory chicken or cow...

[James Fletcher]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

Are they worse?

Halal, or more precisely, the Dhabihah method of slaughter, dictates that the animal should not be sedated/anesthetized prior to killing.

Fortunately in my country it is the law that any food animal must be stunned prior to killing, even Halal and Kosher methods.

[James Fletcher]

Oh, and there is this. But the jury is still out on whether it was all media hyperbole.

7.30 - ABC: Cattle Cruelty

[newmark]

Originally Posted by VinceG

It would be kinda cool if all the unapologetic meat eaters were to go through a lifetime as a factory chicken or cow...

Only if all vegetarians agree to be vegetables

[Andrew Gubb]

Originally Posted by James Fletcher

Oh, and there is this. But the jury is still out on whether it was all media hyperbole.

7.30 - ABC: Cattle Cruelty

Well, really most intensive animal farming is like that. It's worth a look into movies like "Earthlings" about the animal food industry. It's available for free here. If you can stomach it.

The one I personally think is the worst - though there are a lot of things to choose between for this designation - is how some cows are skinned alive for leather. Apparently it makes a better product.

Wow.

[Philemon]

Ahhh, such a heated topic, so many are so easily offended.

I was a vegetarian for three years, gave it up, now I'm thinking about going back.

I always left the ideology out of it when people talked to me. They'd say "why do you do it?" I'd say, "personal choice. It began as a self-improvement challenge, and now it just feels healthier."

At first, I would just reply, "Industry," which is the real answer. If you've studied the meat industry, the problems are blatant and obvious. The problem is no one can even hear or assimilate facts if they've already formed a set belief around the idea...the facts become useless on that person.

I like the notions in the OP. But for now I've resorted to feeding people great vegetarian options, and casually discussing why I think it's important that we reduce our meat consumption. When I don't call myself a vegetarian, I seem to have a greater impact on people. They don't have that immediate mental separation from me, idealistically speaking.

[Sfumato]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

No lie. I got the figure from "Eating Animals". Sure they might be bait fish that people don't eat. That's the point. Gratuitous animal death - that's what people want to avoid. Or at least many do. They may be okay with killing one animal to eat it, but to kill 10 animals for every one they eat is something they'd be less comfortable wth.

Edit: this part of the book is available online. (ctrl+f and search for shrimp - it's the second instance of the word). About Eating Animals, the book - by Jonathan Safran Foer

You can take up your objection to the statistics with the author.

Jonathan Safran Foer is a self proclaimed Veg and occasional omnivore. Should I take his "unbiased" opinions and deny the years of experience I had a s a kid growing up in Maine? Manson once wrote in a book too, should I believe that doctrine also?

There is no "Gratuitous Death" in the fishing industry, this perception comes from a stance of practical ignorance and an illogical emotional response to an issue you feel strongly about. Please don't get mad, try to see that you don't have the knowledge or experience to make these kinds of statements, if you did you would see the logical errors within and not make them in the first place.

The American Fishing industry has controls on every level of the marine
ecosystem, from bait to bounty. We cannot over-fish the bait, nor the targeted fish as both the Gov and the Professional fishermen both recognize that, unchecked, the demand for fish would result in the wiping out of many species. Captains who break the law don't last long, as both the Coast Guard and other boat owners will fight them to protect the stocks. I saw it as a child, guys who would lay out more traps then they were allowed or try to bring Female "egger" lobsters into the co-op, would often find themselves reported and in extreme cases, have their trap lines cut in the middle of the night.
If you want I could arrange for you to work on my Cousins Lobster Boat for a week and you can see for yourself, the reality of modern fishing.

[Andrew Gubb]

1. Jonathan Safran Foer isn't "unbiased", and you are not "unbiased". Neither of you are "unbiased". I don't have any reason to consider your argument as more valuable than his, and it seems to be more emotionally based and less substantial than his.

2. You can believe what you want.

[Sfumato]

Your right, I will believe in factual data and the logic of experience.

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by Philemon

Ahhh, such a heated topic, so many are so easily offended.

I was a vegetarian for three years, gave it up, now I'm thinking about going back.

I always left the ideology out of it when people talked to me. They'd say "why do you do it?" I'd say, "personal choice. It began as a self-improvement challenge, and now it just feels healthier."

At first, I would just reply, "Industry," which is the real answer. If you've studied the meat industry, the problems are blatant and obvious. The problem is no one can even hear or assimilate facts if they've already formed a set belief around the idea...the facts become useless on that person.

I like the notions in the OP. But for now I've resorted to feeding people great vegetarian options, and casually discussing why I think it's important that we reduce our meat consumption. When I don't call myself a vegetarian, I seem to have a greater impact on people. They don't have that immediate mental separation from me, idealistically speaking.

This is the only post in here that gave me a feeling of relief.

[JDuff]

I understand what you are saying but I don't separate myself from people in that way! I don't think "you are a meat eater" or "you play a different sport" and decide "idealistically" that we are separate. I see all beings as stemming from the same source and as having far more in common than not. This is one of the main reasons why I AM vegetarian - because I accept that other non-human beings feel pleasure and pain, and have emotional and social lives. As a result, they have moral status and their desires and "opinions" deserve to be taken into consideration!

I don't think it's really "heated" per se. It's cool to express your opinion with what seems like a weighty argument. I wouldn't, however, condone personal attacks or rhetorical arguments.

[Philemon]

Originally Posted by JDuff

I understand what you are saying but I don't separate myself from people in that way! I don't think "you are a meat eater" or "you play a different sport" and decide "idealistically" that we are separate. I see all beings as stemming from the same source and as having far more in common than not. This is one of the main reasons why I AM vegetarian - because I accept that other non-human beings feel pleasure and pain, and have emotional and social lives. As a result, they have moral status and their desires and "opinions" deserve to be taken into consideration!

I don't think it's really "heated" per se. It's cool to express your opinion with what seems like a weighty argument. I wouldn't, however, condone personal attacks or rhetorical arguments.

Perhaps "separate" gives the wrong connotation. And, I wasn't saying that "you" separate yourself---how could I make such a specific assumption about an individual I don't know?

I'm glad that you don't view yourself in that manner, but I wasn't talking about you. I'm talking about an idea, but perhaps I'm being too general.

[Andrew Gubb]

I quite liked Philemon's point of view. It resonates also with what I read recently. Some vegans talking about the author of the book "Eating Animals". They were asking if it were an issue that the author wasn't a strict vegan (his book delves into the workings of the animal foods industry and the only conclusion you can draw from it is to move, at least, in the direction of veganism. It has served to create a lot of converts).

Apparently a lot more people went to the talks done by the author on the topic than talks done by the vegans who were talking. Apparently the author's lack of distinct identity as a vegan or whatever made people much more open to listening to him. There was no "vegan" here and "normal person" here, they were all the same people.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by VinceG

It would be kinda cool if all the unapologetic meat eaters were to go through a lifetime as a factory chicken or cow...

Obligatory link: Arrogant Worms - Carrot Juice is Murder - YouTube

The issue with anything that increases costs is that it's going to hit the poorest people hardest, and say what you will about meat it's a cheap and plentiful source of high-calorie nutrients.

The term "nutrient" is being used a little loosely when referring to factory farmed meat, but the point is that many people rely on it and you can't just raise the cost without implementing a safety net or somehow balancing the social structures.

Veganism is a luxury for many people, and while it's well and good to talk about reforming the meat industry we're probably going to need to subsidize the improvements if they're going to happen. My solution would not be to eliminate the subsidies but appropriate them elsewhere so it has the minimum impact on those the changes would hurt most.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

- this meat was once a living, sentient animal
- this chicken lived 6 months, when its normal life span would have been 20 years
- For every pound of this shrimp you buy, 10 pounds of dead sea animals were thrown back into the water

People would find this invasive, because they find it uncomfortable, but I think bringing the truth to the surface can not be considered an invasion of anyone's rights. They do it for cigarettes and now alcohol is labelled with "drink responsibly". It seems to be a government's job to make sure that truth is available and not covered up by industry interests.

I'd also add that this would likely have the opposite of the intended effect. There's a good chance that if I saw a label like that on the meat I buy I'd buy even more of it out of spite.

The government should ensure information is available, yes, but I don't like having my intelligence insulted every time I go to the checkout counter and I know I'm not alone.

That's where liberal/progressive politics goes too far. Too often it assumes people are too stupid to take care of themselves and regardless of whether it's true I resent it when it's done so blatantly even when I'm not the target audience.

I think it also overlooks one key thing: a lot of people would say, "why should I give a **** about the animals?" If their suffering could somehow be tied to something that effects us personally it would work but to just point it out won't change anything. PETA's already got people primed to block it out.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Cado

I think it also overlooks one key thing: a lot of people would say to that, "why should I give a **** about the animals?" If their suffering could somehow be tied to something that effects us personally it would work but to just point out the suffering of the animals won't change anything. PETA's already got people primed to block it out.

Y'know, this is a good point. I've wondered how I can get people to care more about what goes on in factory farms since they pretty much seem aware of it, they just decide not to think about it.

I don't know if PETA has any beneficial effect at all. They just seem to make all the meat-eaters mad.

What gets people? This doesn't seem to be approachable with rationality. One thing that gets people is cuteness. I think there's been some success at dealing with the veal industry because people don't like poor little baby cows being treated that way. There was backlash also about dolphins being killed during tuna harvesting. But there doesn't seem to be much interest at all in how grown-up cows are treated, or pigs or chickens either.

Yes, it might be somewhat successful if people had to view the actual killed animal. A friend of mine, for interest, gets upset about deer hunting, which mystifies me because he is a total factory farm meat eater (KFC, you name it) -- but it's because he sees these beautiful deer standing around in fields and then he also sees them all bloody and dead, strapped into the back of a pick-up truck.

But I don't think it would work to "force" people to look at the actual killed animal. Similar to what you said, Cado, that sort of thing might just tick people off.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

Y'know, this is a good point. I've wondered how I can get people to care more about what goes on in factory farms since they pretty much seem aware of it, they just decide not to think about it.

I've often thought the indirect route might work the best. If, say, you could get people to protest wood pulp in their food it would be far easier to get them to reject hormones and antibiotics in their meat, and keep in mind the industry couldn't exist in its current form without the use of antibiotics.

You have a good case for it, too. The widespread use of antibiotics is liable to create superbugs in the not too distant future, and in fact we're already seeing strains of bacteria that are quite resistant to our current methods of fighting them.

Imagine if you could frame it like, "meat is creating the 21st century plague." That would turn heads. As sensationalistic as the news is we're not completely numb to it, and when you're talking about something that effects people so directly they're more likely to listen.

Appeals to principle or compassion will never work. There's no lack of information, in fact it's a common trope in the USA to joke about the horrible things that go on behind the scenes as you buy a pair of slave-labor shoes on your way to get a wood-pulp and hormone filled bacon cheeseburger. What is lacking is:

1. An expedient means to act on that information.

2. Something which ties the macrocosm to the microcosm, ie "how does this effect me?"

Yeah, it sucks that the ice caps are melting, but how does that relate to paying my bills? To feeding me? To clothing me? And I'm not just talking long-term, how is it relevant to me now?

You can appeal to reason, you can appeal to the heart, but there needs to be a sense of urgency because in some of these cases we need to act immediately. I think it's also worth keeping in mind that many of the systems uptop are interlinked and reforming various industries may be best accomplished by focusing on governments first. Corporations have them in their back pockets and that is a substantial handicap for those of us who would fight for change.

Remember when politicians were actually beholden to the people? Yeah, neither do I.