Me: Playing Fallout: New Vegas for the first time, thinking that Littlehorn & Associates is just a silly joke based on a biblical deep cut. No one would be that unnaturally petty and evil in the real world.
They found an issue that profits them that undecideds will get behind, is why.
Free Range laws are a complicated and touchy subject in a lot of Blue areas. Eggs more than doubled in price in my state in the last 6 months or so. I’m willing to pay for them because I think Free Range laws are humane, but I’m a couple towns over from a very depressed urban community that really feels the difference when eggs were one of the cheapest nutritional purchases they could buy.
THERE, there’s been a lot of grumbling by traditionally blue voters about the Free Range laws. Unfortunately, for a lot of people, empathy ends when it affects their family.
IMO, we needed subsidy or purchase-subsidy of some sort to counteract the cost of Free Range laws, and this might not have happened because it might not have been popular enough. Nonetheless, hopefully they shoot themsleves in the foot with this. They’re leaning on the same commerce clause that could eventually lead to a federal Free Range mandate.
I know chicken farmers and breakfast restaurant owners on a first name basis. It was absolutely, positively the free-range law. I’m not saying no other price influencers could exist, but the market, retail, and wholesale I’ve seen is all about the free range law.
And most of the ones I Know are torn because “business is business” but they know deep down inside that free-range requirements are reasonable and humane.
I don’t see how this would go anywhere after 303 Creative.
Corporations are people for the purposes of free speech thanks to Citizens United. Congress can’t pass a law depriving them of their free speech rights - and animal welfare would definitely fall within the scope.
303 says - among other things - that state or federal law can’t compel to to perform an act against your right to free speech.
I think you may be misunderstanding this bill. This bill attempts to gut existing state and local laws (that themselves still are weak)
The EATS Act, short for Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression, was introduced last month by Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) with a companion bill in the House from Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-IA), and would prohibit state and local governments from setting standards for how agricultural products imported from other states are produced. The bill’s language is not only sweeping, but vague, and some of its potential effects are unclear. For example, it covers the “preharvest” production of agricultural products, but “preharvest” isn’t defined.
They’re mad because California won a Supreme Court battle that banned importing pork from other states unless the provider can show that the animal was allowed to move freely while being raised.
And since California is a HUGE market, it essentially makes a lot of animal farming… I won’t say cruelty-free, but less-cruel.
If it’s about cruelty, it might be time to eat better meat. I eat all local and organic meat and produce. The cows I eat? I know the lives they live before slaughter and I feel no shame in supporting the farms that give them those lives.
All it takes is more people fighting for better meat and the companies will oblige. They’ll come up with their own promises of humane treatment (with their own markups, I’m sure) and they will be able to be held to them even if they lie at first.
The real problem isn’t eating meat, it’s eating McDonalds hamburgers not once caring where they came from or what’s in them.
Again, just if it’s about cruelty and federal oversight of free range laws. If you just don’t want to eat meat, don’t eat meat (but watch your A, B12, Iron, Zinc, etc)
It's a very old story, states rights unless the states do something conservatives don't like.
An example was banning slavery. Conservatives didn't like that, so they started a war over it. A war meant to deny the states the right to ban slavery.
Now they want to ban states from bettering the world. I say now, but it's actually always.
Bloodmouths don’t want to hear it. They need to pretend their corpse habit is sustainable and friendly because if any of them actually thought about the animals they’re hurting they’d feel bad.
The way to get people on your side (and you know, actually help the animals) is to do pretty much the opposite of what you’re doing. Black-and-white thinking (“either you’re a vegan, or you’re a bloodmouth!”) is paradoxically going to drive people away from what you’re saying and cause more animals to be harmed.
Just not an option for most people, and not an appealing option for even more than that.
You don’t even need to go vegan to have a positive impact.
Personally, I’ve been buying a lot more meat alternatives from Impossible, Beyond, Gardein, et al. Had to cut out red meat for heart health, but those alternatives quickly grew on me. The environmental and animal welfare benefits are just a bonus.
Technically, yes, and in a survival situation, sure. But when you can get whatever you want at a grocery store / restaurant, it’s a much bigger hurdle for people to make that change. Realistically, people are going to eat what they like.
I’d have never even bothered with the plant-based “meats” had the doctor not told me, flat out, “Unless you change your diet, you are going to die”. Literally took those words before I was able to force myself to change my eating habits.
Pushing cold-turkey veganism isn’t really helping the cause here. Yes, that would be ideal, but it’s letting perfect be the enemy of good.
The extra insulin I would have to take as a T1 diabetic to cover a carb-heavy diet would quickly outweigh any financial savings eating beans and rice would.
There are dozens of us out there who have restrictive diets that, while veg* diets are technically possible, are not easy, financially sound, or realistic. I try to stick to a primarily vegetarian diet, but I also recognize that protein is an outsized portion of my diet compared to most people. To accomplish that, animal products are important to me. Cheese, eggs, and even the occasional meat product are going to be things I eat, and not feel bad about.
You know, fair. In a humane world we’d find a way to support people like you, but right now I guess there are probably some people who really must feed on corpses to survive. I still say this is a red herring, because bloodmouths use you as a cover for their own unjustified blood letting.
If by “not an option” you are referring to cost, it turns out that it actually is usually cheaper to eat plant-based diets overall, and real-world spending data agrees with that
It found that in high-income countries:
• Vegan diets were the most affordable and reduced food costs by up to one third.
• Vegetarian diets were a close second.
• Flexitarian diets with low amounts of meat and dairy reduced costs by 14%.
• By contrast, pescatarian diets increased costs by up to 2%.
Not the cost, the easy risk of malnutrition and requirement of supplements for B12, iron, D, iodine and omega-3…
The majority of vegans also have difficulty getting all of their protein/amino acids. I actually use a vegan protein powder due to lactose intolerance that solves this issue, but it’s an extra cost not everyone can cover.
Not to mention the elevated risk of Diabetes due to the high carbohydrate diet most vegans have.
Or… You can just eat a chicken breast and solve all of these issues.
It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity. Low intake of saturated fat and high intakes of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, soy products, nuts, and seeds (all rich in fiber and phytochemicals) are characteristics of vegetarian and vegan diets that produce lower total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and better serum glucose control. These factors contribute to reduction of chronic disease
It’s not that it’s not possible, it’s that it’s so easy for the layperson to fuck up. Both those claims about low diabetes risks and being able to supplement missing micronutrients are true alone, but mix them together and you get a risky balance that needs careful tracking.
You’re basically required to eat a cup of cashews a day and put nutritional yeast in at least one meal. If you deviate from this you’re going to be at risk of malnutrition.
Otherwise you’re going to be opting for fortified foods like bread, rice, salt, cereal, etc. Which again have all good choices within them but if you deviate from the recommended track (wheat bread, bran cereal, etc) then without close tracking you’re most likely either eating too little risking malnutrition or you’re eating too many carbs to compensate and spiking your blood sugar
Also there’s several concerns of using fortified foods as your main source of micronutrients. Mostly that fortified foods don’t fully replace the nutrition of whole foods, and the upper levels of these supplements aren’t well controlled leading to a risk of toxicity. Stand-alone supplements are a better alternative, but do have a cost associated with them.
You can totally do vegan, and do it right, but you’re never going to recommend it to Debby down the street who packs her kids lunches every day without also recommending she starts her family on a multivitamin. It’s just not scalable to the whole population like that.
Vegetarians exhibit a wide diversity of dietary practices, often described by what is omitted from their diet. When a vegetarian diet is appropriately planned and includes fortified foods, it can be nutritionally adequate for adults and children and can promote health and lower the risk of major chronic diseases. The nutrients of concern in the diet of vegetarians include vitamin B(12), vitamin D, ω-3 fatty acids, calcium, iron, and zinc. Although a vegetarian diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients, the use of supplements and fortified foods provides a useful shield against deficiency. A vegetarian diet usually provides a low intake of saturated fat and cholesterol and a high intake of dietary fiber and many health-promoting phytochemicals. This is achieved by an increased consumption of fruits, vegetables, whole-grains, legumes, nuts, and various soy products. As a result of these factors, vegetarians typically have lower body mass index, serum total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and blood pressure; reduced rates of death from ischemic heart disease; and decreased incidence of hypertension, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and certain cancers than do nonvegetarians.
Despite the enormous benefits of food fortification strategies on nutritional status, some studies have identified opposite results in terms of no impact of food fortification programs and of guaranteeing safe upper limits. For example, a study conducted among Brazilian children under the age of six found no effect of iron-fortified flour on anemia prevalence. The study consisted of four population-based surveys conducted over a four-year period, and it measured dietary intake and hemoglobin levels. The findings showed an unexpected increase in anemia among children. Despite the average intake of fortified flour detected by the study amounting to 100 g per day, the poor diets quality of children with low bioavailability of iron compromised the benefits of fortified flour
Also from your article:
Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity.
While the diet supports it, this is just as much a correlation. It does not account for the other lifestyle choices of vegans and vegetarians such as exercising more often than the typical person.
Who’s the loser that’s downvoted every comment on this post? Please actually argue why we should treat animals even more unconscionably than we already do. I’d like to see how pathetic it is
Most of the comments I’m seeing downvoted are about pushing towards veganism with factually incorrect reasoning or statements.
Nobody is saying they want animals to be treated worse than they already are when they downvote “veganism is better for the environment because false reason here”, and especially not when they downvote the people getting rude to them.
I have yet to see one downvoted comment that is simply saying they oppose Republicans on this disgusting political ploy of theirs. Totally different things, my man (or woman).
They’ll say anything in the moment to justify the decisions that the corporations paid for. Their positions don’t need to be consistent for longer than a few minutes.
Unfortunately this just isn’t always true. They also care deeply about the maintenance of existing hierarchies and will cheerfully vote against their own financial interests in order to maintain them.
The fact is, most animals in our food system live under dismal conditions, and the pitifully low bar for their treatment was set in directives from the same industry’s leaders who today are so upset about being vilified. “Forget the pig is an animal—treat him just like a machine in a factory,” recommended Hog Farm Managementin 1976. Two years later, National Hog Farmer advised: “The breeding sow should be thought of, and treated as, a valuable piece of machinery whose function is to pump out baby pigs like a sausage machine.”
And farmers, eager to squeeze every dollar from their crops, complied. Today, nearly 5 million of these smart, social animals (representing over 80 percent of all sows in pork production) are confined to tiny gestation crates—cages so narrow the animals can’t even turn around. They spend their lives lined up like cars in a parking lot, barely able to move an inch and driven insane from the extreme deprivation
I went vegetarian this year (vegan when it’s possible) mostly because of the horrors of factory farming. I could not continue to participate in such a horrific system anymore.
We don’t eat cats or dogs, so why is it okay to eat other animals? They all have thoughts and feelings.
Why is it ideal or even ethical to kill others “kosher or halal” when we don’t have to kill in any way? How does this relate to them living in cages before?
Both kosher and halal require you to kill the animal quickly and painlessly. I’d say the pasture raised is more important, since that’s every other day of the animal’s life, but I’d like the last day to also not suck.
I mean, if you’re coming at it from the point of “there is no ethical meat consumption,” then you’re right, none of this means anything. It’s a simple “don’t ever eat meat.”
In which case, kosher and halal are irrelevant. Pasture raised is still relevant because we need to discuss what ethical production of things like eggs and milk looks like.
I come from the point that if we don’t have to kill or abuse others we should not. That is the case for most of us. You can’t ethical impregnate a cow, steal the baby and drink their milk. Raising chicken breeds which can’t stand on their own feet or get infections and tumors and just live to be exploited is not justifiable with taste.
Grass-fed production doesn’t really scale, so there’s not much way around consumption changes here. It also comes with a side effect of raising methane emissions
We model a nationwide transition [in the US] from grain- to grass-finishing systems using demographics of present-day beef cattle. In order to produce the same quantity of beef as the present-day system, we find that a nationwide shift to exclusively grass-fed beef would require increasing the national cattle herd from 77 to 100 million cattle, an increase of 30%. We also find that the current pastureland grass resource can support only 27% of the current beef supply (27 million cattle), an amount 30% smaller than prior estimates
[…]
If beef consumption is not reduced and is instead satisfied by greater imports of grass-fed beef, a switch to purely grass-fed systems would likely result in higher environmental costs, including higher overall methane emissions. Thus, only reductions in beef consumption can guarantee reductions in the environmental impact of US food systems.
Taken together, an exclusively grass-fed beef cattle herd would raise the United States’ total methane emissions by approximately 8%.
You say that, but it’s not really just about grass-feeding. Cows are already fed almost 90% inedible crop materials that would be getting disposed of anyway. We could be doing better, but cattle’s food source is sorta the wrong focus.
And as much methane is in manure, it’s better for the environment (including GHG) than synthetic fertilizers.
The real answer is changing our meat/vegetable balance AND improve the process AND continue to improve humane regulations (and those 3 goals often synergize with each other).
The % that’s edible is not as relevant as the fact that it still takes much more human-edible feed
Not really. Definitely not if you consider the nutritional quality of the meat. And that’s beef, the worst example. (Feed to meat conversion from 6x to 25x, the higher number generally for free-range). Chickens are only x2 in ideal situations (closer to 5x when free-range since their calorie intake is not as well-managed). And from a health viewpoint, 100kcal of chicken is a better-balanced calorie than 200kcal of feed
But that is before accounting for the fact that about 165 of those feed kcals are inedible, meaning you’re trading around 35 edible kcals of corn for 100 edible kcals of chicken. Would you agree from a purely health and efficiency point of view (leaving out ethics), that 35 edible calories of a “non-nutritional grain” for 100 edible calories of a protein superfood is a pretty fair trade?
Synthetic fertilizer usage is greatly reduced by eating plants directly even compared to the best-case use of animal manure
Missed this one, so jumping back. It’s hard for me to respond because I don’t have access to the whole paper. There seem to be fairly significant issues with it, however. For one, I can’t find any corroboration that isn’t merely citing this paper. For another, I can’t find any critical responses either (the lack of them is worse than a half-decent one IMO). Nonetheless, there’s a few things I find interesting from the summary the seem to make it hard to just accept an argument using it
The killer, to me. This paper actively presumes that all crop farms that produce crops that have inedible components that cows will eat (like corn) will pivot to 100% vegetable. But a vast majority of that crop’s output is in explicit demand and corn farms are not just going to fold up. They will start destroying their excess waste instead of reselling it as feed. That ruins his math. But he also failed to take into account what a world horticulture setup would look like that actually sustains humanity, and merely counting IFE is just not enough.
This paper seems to claim a 65% reduction in fertilizer usage, but doesn’t account for the fact it would HAVE to primarily be synthetic fertilizer if we stopped eating cows. This is a huge problem for me because I’m an outspoken advocate of collaborative farming, to reduce the disgusting use of synthetic fertilizer by regulating and enforcing better use of manure and localization of animal farms. There’s far more than 3x as many cows in the world than can be maintained if they aren’t being consumed. He does not cite or comment on how much worse synthetic fertilizer is than manure fertilizer. And if I’m reading right, that’s his high end. It might only be more like 30%. I would rather 100 units of manure used than 70 units of synthetic fertilizer without a second thought.
And your second link… I’m not sure why you cited it. It appears to be arguing for my side, defending the figures I used. Thank you?
Cropland usage is still lower when looking at the nutrition of it all
we show that plant-based replacements for each of the major animal categories in the United States (beef, pork, dairy, poultry, and eggs) can produce twofold to 20-fold more nutritionally similar food per unit cropland. Replacing all animal-based items with plant-based replacement diets can add enough food to feed 350 million additional people, more than the expected benefits of eliminating all supply chain food loss.
Further, we can plant other crops on that land growing feed crops. The greatly lower cropland usage offers quite a bit of flexibility to shift around production
Cropland usage is still lower when looking at the nutrition of it all
I disagree with you and that paper’s abstract. They’re comparing worst-case current aggriculture with a hypothetical improved horticulture.
Also, I extended my previous post; you might have missed it.
Further, we can plant other crops on that land growing feed crops
How do you intend to kill off the demand for those crops? Or do you intend to forbid people and businesses from consuming crops with a lot of feed-waste like corn or soy?
I hate to be “that guy”, but I feel like none of your references are really properly rebutting his valid point. “We don’t eat cats and dogs” is a common anti-balanced-diet dogwhistle that tries to touch on heartstrings instead of logic or even ethical behavior. You might not have meant it that way, but he was justified in pointing out the cultural bias of it.
And “cultural imperialism” is different from “literal imperialism”, but that also means your rebuttal was a gishgallop, changing the topic. I’m ASSUMING you didn’t mean to secretly change the topic to prevent losing on that previous point, but that’s what the reply looks like anyway.
The original point they made talking about how people commonly hold contradictory beliefs regarding dogs and cats compared to other animals is pointing out cultural bias. It is an appeal for logical consistency in ethical beliefs
Actually, their original point was “We don’t eat cats and dogs”. You seem to be drawing a lot of foundation they did not lay. We cannot presume that foundation, or its solidity, because they are controversial and MIGHT have been rebuttable.
Ultimately, it was a meme-worthy throw out of one sentence trying to pull at heartstrings. If he intended more or something defensible, he failed to prove it.
At this point, I’m pretty sure you’re a vegan from your replies to me. Even if you were on the right side of ethics by some agreeable system, that doesn’t make his original point more than it actually was. You can argue for the right thing with a bad or lacking argument, and you can (and should) be called on that.
Look at the words that immediately follow. “We don’t eat cats or dogs, so why is it okay to eat other animals” is a statement looking at contradictions. I don’t see much point in continuing this conversation if we’re going to be arguing over semantics/sentence meaning here. I don’t think anyone gets much out of that. Also because for some reason, replies are not showing up in my inbox so I can’t see your responses easily anyway (I think lemmy.ml is having some issues again)
Bingo, heartstrings of an unsubstantiated argument. Thank you for quoting him.
is a statement looking at contradictions
No, it’s a statement accusing contradictions without substantiating them. It’s no different than if I said “we don’t eat cats and dogs, so why is it ok to eat other things in nature like tomatoes?” Except that is OBVIOUSLY the nonsense to who anyone who wants to not die of starvation where his statement merely secretly is. Creating a special category/line of “the animal kingdom” in a flippant unfounded way creates a false likeness between cats&dogs and pork. Add lobsters and other insect-like animals, then add insects, then add bacteria, and then plants. Every one of those steps can be justified if no additional argument is provided. It’s all about making someone feel bad for a poor cute fluffy puppy, even if not intended that way. There is a difference between emotions and ethics.
I don’t see much point in continuing this conversation if we’re going to be arguing over semantics/sentence meaning here
With all due respect, that’s on you. I’m not sure if you followed me from our other discussions or simply found my calling the bad argument what it was. I have very strong opinoins about people, especially zealots, trying to push their pseudoreligious views on others using bad-but-convincing arguments. It’s my thing. It’s not everyone’s thing, especially if they personally support the belief that’s being defended badly.
(I think lemmy.ml is having some issues again)
Probably yes :(. Lemmy.ml was not prepared. But it’s home.
This bill, if it passes, applies to much more than just what the just the title says here
The bill would also threaten other farmed animal welfare laws, like California’s and New York City’s prohibitions on the sale of foie gras, a product made by force-feeding ducks and geese.
[…]
The bill is written so broadly that it could threaten some 1,000 other state and local laws and regulations that govern agriculture, from timber to beef to crops, according to Kelley McGill, a regulatory policy fellow at Harvard Law School’s Animal Law and Policy Program
Add comment