20 ms·
Bacon may disappear in California as pig rules take effect
- adamnemecek 5y agoGood, meat consumption is immoral.
- user-the-name 5y agoHN sure doesn't want to hear it, though. The reason people get so upset and angry about vegans, the reason they keep making fun of them, is that they do know that they can't form a coherent argument for why they are wrong. There is no morally coherent argument for eating meat beyond "I care less about the suffering of animals than I do about my own pleasure". That is a valid argument you can make, though, but most people do know deep down it makes them look bad to make that argument, so they will instead just attack vegans for being annoying rather than face up to the consequences of their own choices.
- vimy 5y agoI belief only a small % of people can be healthy without eating meat. It’s anecdotal but too many stories of devote vegans who fall ill after years and miraculously recover after eating meat again. A common argument is they must have done something wrong but I don’t buy it.
- colordrops 5y agoWell that's the problem - you are basing your belief on anecdote and gut feeling. The actual science behind this is overwhelming - there is nothing wrong with a vegan diet. You won't be able to find much that states otherwise. Beans and whole grains can provide all essential amino acids despite propaganda stating otherwise. Even meat eaters don't get enough B12 and should supplement, because B12 comes from the food animals eat, and their feed is insufficient. If you don't just eat Oreos and white rice, you should be fine as a vegan. The propaganda against veganism will eventually be seen as how the cigarette industry sold cigarettes as healthy.
- rantwasp 5y agonope. Eating a 100% vegan diet without taking any supplements and without having access to a great nutritionist will make you have a bad time. It’s stupid hard to get all the nutrients you need without meat and you need to be in a privileged position to start with to do this successfully.
- colordrops 5y agoDo you have any references? Other than supplementation of B12, which meat eaters should do as well, there is no scientific evidence that "it's stupid hard" and you need a nutritionist. In fact, the only thing you need to know is to eat plenty of whole grains, legumes, and green vegetables and you WILL get your needed nutrients and proteins. Prove otherwise please - which nutritional requirements would not be met?
- rantwasp 5y agoposted some references in here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28028126 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28028126 also, start with this and do a bit of research: https://michaelkummer.com/health/plants-vs-meat/ https://michaelkummer.com/health/plants-vs-meat/
- colordrops 5y agoScientific studies would be better sources of information than articles. In any case, the evolutionary discussions are not an argument for modern diets, for obvious reasons. The only thing with any merit in the links you posted is about DHA. Your body CAN produce it from plant sources, but if you must insist on taking DHA, it comes from algae, and there are algal sources. Animal sources get it from algae as well. If you are suggesting nutricional deficiencies due to DHA you need to provide real references indicating that, and not general articles on the nutritional profiles of meat vs vegetables that make vague associations with health outcomes.
- 5y ago
- patrick451 5y agoWhat are the consequences of my choice? An animal dies, and I eat it. I'm fine with that. I have yet to hear a compelling argument for why it's bad for me to effect an animals death, but fine for a wolf. If it's actually wrong, let's kill all the predators on the planet. Or least capture them all and feed them kale.
- colordrops 5y agoThis is a simplistic child-like logic. Not even sure how to address it.
- rantwasp 5y agoI does raise an important question. Why do we have predators and why do we even have a food chain? Is it possible that evolutionary consuming meat gives you an advantage?
- user-the-name 5y agoThere is no "why". We do, that is a fact of life and we can not, at the current time, do anything to change this. It is not due to a choice that we made, nor can we make a choice to change it. If, one day, we are in a position where we can make that choice, then that will be a relevant moral question to decide.
- colordrops 5y agoDo you mean predators in general or just humans? Because humans can definitely make a choice right now.
- user-the-name 5y agoPredators in general was the topic, for some reason.
- prepend 5y ago
- amanaplanacanal 5y agoMorality is not universal. Life is a series of trade-offs. It is impossible to live without causing suffering to other creatures. Others choose differently from you. All of those are coherent.
- adamnemecek 5y ago"Concentration camps were a trade-off". You probably.
- dang 5y agoYou should know better than to post like this to HN. Please review the site guidelines and stick to the rules. All of them, please. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28027495 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28027495 was a terrible HN comment too. Please stop that.
- user-the-name 5y agoSo, "I care less about the suffering of animals than I do about my own pleasure"?
- rantwasp 5y agoOh wow. Let me try forming that argument: 1) meat is nutrient-packed and getting all your nutrients from a plant based diet is stupid hard 2) to be able to be a vegan and healthy you need (today at least) to be in a privileged position (how many poor vegans do you know?) 3) we evolutionarily got here by eating meat - our bodies do better when eating animal fat and protein. The grown and thriving survival of our species is anchored in killing other animals (sounds f’ed up but it is what it is). https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1... https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/diagnosis-diet/201903/the-brain-needs-animal-fat https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/diagnosis-diet/20190... https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/brain-food-children-nutrition-2018012313168 https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/brain-food-children-nutr... https://time.com/4252373/meat-eating-veganism-evolution/ https://time.com/4252373/meat-eating-veganism-evolution/
- adamnemecek 5y agoA third of India somehow manages to get all the nutrients. Historically humans didn't eat as much meat as humans do today.
- tryingtogetback 5y agoRight, India is The Beacon of Light all western civilizations should be looking up to? No, thanks! Your opuscule of a comment doesn't make a damn sense.
- adamnemecek 5y agoYou can learn something from every country. You don’t have to adopt a caste system with vegetarianism.
- user-the-name 5y agoTry reading it again, and the comment before it. It will come to you.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
- rdtwo 5y agoAmerican vegan food tends to be so processed and gross it’s the equivalent of vegan spam. Vegan food has a flavor and accessibility problem that’s not solved by calling meat eating immoral. If you want more folks to eat vegan make the food more accessible and flavorful. Stop trying to make vegan cheese and make semi proper vegan meals that are easily accessible and have good sauces and spices
- user-the-name 5y agoSo what you are saying is, "I care less about the suffering of animals than I do about my own pleasure", yes?
- elmalto 5y agoSounds like the pig-farming industry is trying to get some of that sweet subsidy money by waiting until the last minute to do anything. Don’t blame them from business side but totally avoidable of course
- ProjectArcturis 5y agoOr they intentionally want to cause a supply shock, to punish California voters for trying to improve animal welfare, and to deter other states from doing the same.
- prepend 5y agoOr the cost of the changes are not compatible with their business model and it’s more profitable to not make changes and export what would have gone to california.
- ProjectArcturis 5y agoCould be. I think the pork industry probably believes this is a temporary anomaly that they can overcome with lobbyists and lawyers. Or that California voters will reverse themselves once bacon costs $10 a pound. If that's true, they wouldn't want to invest for that short time horizon. If a similar rule were adopted nationwide, I'm sure they could make changes and pass the price increases along to the consumer.
- f0xytr0xy 5y agoQuick, make sure to post how awful california is and how much hate you have for the bear state and how much you love your double wide in texas! hacker news pileon
- rytcio 5y agoCalifornia needs to fall into the ocean
- gedy 5y agoIt is, albeit very slowly.
- geofft 5y ago> Barry Goodwin, an economist at North Carolina State University, estimated the extra costs at 15% more per animal for a farm with 1,000 breeding pigs. > If half the pork supply was suddenly lost in California, bacon prices would jump 60%, meaning a $6 package would rise to about $9.60, according to a study by the Hatamiya Group, a consulting firm hired by opponents of the state proposition. So let supply and demand work it out? If, as this pork industry PR firm claims, half the pork supply just decides to not participate in the California market, it's financially sensible on the margin for any individual pork farmer to sell meat for anywhere from 15% to 49% more. Note in particular 15% per animal means you're not counting fixed costs like labor, so probably the final price increase will be less than 15%. (This does show the weakness of the California proposition system, though: it's impossible for the normal functioning of government to clarify this law etc. because it's the unchangeable will of the people.)
- dragonwriter 5y ago> This does show the weakness of the California proposition system, though: it's impossible for the normal functioning of government to clarify this law etc. because it's the unchangeable will of the people. That's... misleading. Its true that there is more friction with, say, legislative revision. But its not immutable, the legislature would just have to refer proposed changes to the people. This is very much not an insurmountable barrier, such submissions are not uncommon.
- jacob2484 5y agoYet another "feel good" policy pushed for by rich progressives in California which makes them sleep better while hurting the lower and middle class.
- lalaland1125 5y agoSeems odd to describe this as just a "feel good" policy. The new regulations significantly improve the welfare of farm animals.
- listless 5y agoI don’t think people understand the cruelty of factory farming especially when it comes to pigs. If they saw it first hand, they would almost certainly support this legislation full stop. I love bacon but what we do to these animals is sick and I won’t support it. WARNING GRAPHIC: https://youtu.be/XPGIMCmpfxU https://youtu.be/XPGIMCmpfxU
- sparrish 5y agoI've seen it first hand. I have relatives that raise hogs in the midwest. I do not support this legislation. I do love me some bacon though.
- xnyan 5y agoThe policy had overwhelming public support, including from the "lower" class.
- dehrmann 5y agoI'm a vegetarian, so take this with a grain of salt, but not giving "pigs enough room to turn around and to extend their limbs" seems needlessly cruel. If you can't afford pork, it's not like there aren't cheap protein alternatives.
- _emacsomancer_ 5y agoor better ways of pig farming, at least
- wydfre 5y agoYay, government is leveraging capitalism for less suffering of pigs. Now the price of pork will skyrocket and new enclosures will be built to make some of that Cali money.
- sokoloff 5y agoI wonder if this will have an unintended effect of making pork cheaper in the rest of the country for some time.
- prepend 5y agoLikely. I suppose we’ll see McRib back on the menu outside CA.
- jmartinpetersen 5y agoOur European visitors are important to us. This site is currently unavailable to visitors from the European Economic Area while we work to ensure your data is protected in accordance with applicable EU laws. Really makes you feel important.
- fy20 5y agoIt was fun for the first 6 months after GDPR enforcement started, but after 3 years they should just replace this with a middle finger emoji.
- xibalba 5y agoPerhaps at least some of the blame should be borne by your government and what some (clearly) view as onerous, economically nonviable, misinformed, and poorly executed regulations?
- alangibson 5y agoNo. I managed to comply with GDPR with 2 hours work on my eCommerce site.
- jbluepolarbear 5y agoThat’s great for you, doesn’t mean companies want or need to comply. They’ve decided that it’s more worthwhile to block the EU instead of invest in complying with the GDPR. The EU knew this would happen.
- eitland 5y agoMany of us don't complain about being blocked, we just poke fun at the ridiculously dishonest way they phrase it.
- erik_seaberg 5y agoPlease don’t bet the farm on having done that little bit of work. GDPR compliance is not something you can finish but instead you have to continually demonstrate. It involves hiring specialists and 8–14 week consultation delays before launching features.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- vimy 5y ago> Our European visitors are important to us. This site is currently unavailable to visitors from the European Economic Area while we work to ensure your data is protected in accordance with applicable EU laws. Sigh. Why does a local Fox station even bother. I would just ignore EU, aka foreign, regulations.
- sneak 5y agoI wonder at what point it makes sense for the federal government to step in when state laws end up substantially hindering interstate trade. This isn't the standard American communication method where I'm actually insinuating that it's time right now by implying that; I just recognize that there is some point between "completely unrestricted trade" and "you're not allowed to trade with anyone in another state" that the federal government should probably get involved and override state laws restricting trade. Obviously for firearms the federal government takes a pretty heavy involvement. I wonder where the line should be for food? Animal welfare is a pretty contentious issue.
- jupp0r 5y agoAre you thinking sanctions for states who prohibit cannabis trade?
- sneak 5y agoMarijuana trade is already federally illegal in all 50 states and territories while many states have majorly unrestricted it, so that would be the opposite of what I'm talking about. In this case, California is restricting trade in pork not raised to their opinions of what constitutes humane treatment. Federal standards are obviously less restrictive. It's within federal jurisdiction to override the California law to permit California people to buy non-CA-compliant pork from Iowa. It will be interesting to see how this plays out if California continues on its "ban everything" trajectory. Bacon may not be the hill to die on, but food trade in general is possibly one of the things that could trigger federal intervention if enough leaf nodes get perturbed.
- throwawaycities 5y ago> Marijuana trade is already federally illegal in all 50 states and territories… Interesting fact, the Federal government doesn’t have the power to make marijuana illegal, so instead the federal government taxes it, you just don’t see them offer very many tax stamps for it. That said the federal government does in fact grow and distribute marijuana to select individuals they approved under a compassionate care program. Few patients under the program are still alive, but one patient I knew received 300 pre-rolled joints from the federal government every month for over 3 decades. >It's within federal jurisdiction to override the California law to permit California people to buy non-CA-compliant pork from Iowa. That is a big legal “maybe”. The federal government can usually set regulatory minimums and the states usually have the right to set higher standards. If the federal government can show California’s law effects interstate commerce then the federal government might have supremacy under the commerce clause, but these cases are typically always decided 5-4 by the Supreme Court (and if the learned Justices can’t agree it is unlikely we would make much progress here on HN). Not coincidentally the commerce clause is how the federal government finds its power to regulate marijuana too.
- pmoriarty 5y agoI wish there was some way to require meat eaters to at least visit a slaughterhouse every year to witness the animals that they eat getting slaughtered. Even better would be if they had to slaughter some animals themselves rather than simply paying people to do it for them. Farmers and slaughterhouse workers get desensitized to the slaughter of animals, but I suspect that if people didn't do it all the time but just, say, once or twice a year and saw what actually goes on in slaughterhouses most people would be horrified and many of them would turn vegetarian. Even a single field trip to a slaughterhouse as a kid would probably make lifetime vegetarians out of a lot of people. Most people don't want to think about what they're doing to animals (and certainly not witness, much less directly participate in it), though, so it would probably never happen.
- rantwasp 5y agoI got where you’re coming from but meat is one of the most nutrients packed food you can eat. Also, evolutionary people did not become the top of the food chain by eating plants. Yes, it’s terrible how animals are being treated and yes mass consumption of meat has some terrible side effects. With that being said: do you think that in the wild a predator will think twice about killing and eating their pray? do you think that every person on Earth could turn vegetarian and be able to get a healthy diet tomorrow?
- Nbox9 5y ago> do you think that every person on Earth could turn vegetarian and be able to get a healthy diet tomorrow? That’s an unrealistically high bar to set. Almost anyone can turn vegetarian and have a healthy diet today. Our agricultural sector regularly adjusts for changing tastes of the population, and while this adjustment doesn’t happen overnight it happens regularly.
- rantwasp 5y agoI strongly disagree. I would also like you to point me to resources that show you how to build such a diet. Don’t get me wrong. Eating a mostly-plant based diet is okay and doable but I’m talking the last 5-10% territory.
- excalibur 5y agoI'm seeing pictures in my head of guys in trenchcoats hawking black market bacon. Deep down I think we all knew this was where California was headed.
- everybodyknows 5y agoI’m seeing the meat departments of grocers in western Nevada and Arizona becoming very busy, and lots of small vans in their parking lots around opening time.
- okareaman 5y agoA temporary reduction I'm sure
- jbluepolarbear 5y agoThe farmers will either adapt or their business will fail. There’s gonna be a lot of wasted, rotten meat.
- clifdweller 5y agoChina is still recovering from nuking of their pork industry and vacuuming up all pork we can send them. Even if more states jump on bandwagon not much will change till we commit to not exporting unethical pork
- lxe 5y agoKeep in mind the new standard sets breeding sow's enclosure to be no less than 24 sqft, (think 6x4 feet). I think it's a reasonable and humane standard to be met. It's a good thing the industry is under pressure due to this, and the benefits here outweigh the consequences of pork shortage and higher prices.
- jupp0r 5y agoSeems like some farmers who do comply with the regulations will see good profits from bacon sales for a while.
- c54 5y agoThis is great! Pricing in externalities is exactly what regulation is supposed to accomplish in a functioning market. The meat production industry is full of unpriced externalities[0], and decades of propaganda[1] convincing us that everything is fine and dandy[2]. Not to mention the current (now-historical) market solution isn't an efficient allocation of resources by any means[3]. Livestock account for only 18% of global calories and only 37% of protein! It's a myth that eating meat is the way we get protein. To boot, 45% of crop yields go towards feeding that livestock[4]. I have nothing against eating meat as such, and I'm all for using grazing land for grazing. But the fact that we waste good crop land on highly inefficient food/nutrient/protein production is not good. We have to use regulation to price in these inefficiencies and allow the market to deal with realistic pricing levels for meat. [0] (graphic, but short and info-dense) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcN7SGGoCNI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcN7SGGoCNI [1] https://www.vox.com/2015/4/19/8447883/milk-health-benefit https://www.vox.com/2015/4/19/8447883/milk-health-benefit [2] <this is fine>.jpg [3] https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture [4] https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel-animal-feed https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel... (not thrilled about posting Vox links but they're just the tip of the iceberg if you start reading about this stuff properly)
- systemvoltage 5y agoListing Vox as a source instantly kills the credibility.
- mkolodny 5y ago"At the beginning of next year, California will begin enforcing an animal welfare proposition approved overwhelmingly by voters in 2018 that requires more space for breeding pigs, egg-laying chickens and veal calves. National veal and egg producers are optimistic they can meet the new standards, but only 4% of hog operations now comply with the new rules." This is wonderful news. We're finally putting an end to an unethical factory farming practice - forcing animals to live in inhumanely cramped conditions. There's little chance bacon will disappear from California. Instead, the price will probably go up: "If half the pork supply was suddenly lost in California, bacon prices would jump 60%, meaning a $6 package would rise to about $9.60, according to a study by the Hatamiya Group, a consulting firm hired by opponents of the state proposition." I'm totally fine with paying more for bacon if it means that pigs will be treated more humanely.
- moltenguardian 5y ago> I'm totally fine with paying more for bacon if it means that pigs will be treated more humanely. The problem is that these price increases are regressive, and disproportionately affect the poor.
- oliwarner 5y agoYes. But it also affects all pigs at 96% of pig farms. Humans' rights to luxury meats should not exceed animals' rights to a humane existence.
- unhammer 5y agoRelated: Norwegian pig farmers have had some really bad press lately https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.nrk.no/dokumentar/xl/griseindustriens-brutte-lofter-1.15472297 https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https... (also, I note Google translates "the meat-bosses" into "the butchers")
- ipaddr 5y agoThis is great for consumers worldwide short term as prices will fall. Expensive for California customers. The best thing for animals and if this spreads everyone will be on an equal playing field until than Californians will lead by example.. I predict bacon falling out of popularity quickly.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- neonate 5y agohttps://archive.md/zOtyh https://archive.md/zOtyh