15 ms·
"At the beginning of next year, California will begin enforcing an animal welfare proposition approved overwhelmingly by voters in 2018 that requires more space
by 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.
- chomp 5y agoPork isn’t luxury, it’s really cheap. It’s almost in chicken territory with how cheap it is (where I live).
- duncanc4 5y agoIsn’t the reason it is cheap is because they have really horrible living conditions? Organic meat where the animals are treated properly is expensive.
- oliwarner 5y agoI was thinking more of bacon when I wrote that, but yes, pork is more staple. It doesn't change my opinion about the balance of rights though. As a sibling comment says, disadvantaged families could receive additional benefits to offset meat price rises. You could subsidise welfare improvements but pushing costs up has the benefit of allowing more environmentally beneficial alternatives to break through on value for all consumers.
- danaris 5y agoThe answer to that is not to abandon higher standards that result in higher prices: it is to help the poor directly, in a variety of other ways.
- chakhs 5y agoyes, but when you do one without the other, you're making poor people's life harder. People care about animals more I guess.
- wavepruner 5y agoPlease go to therapy and learn about healthy boundaries. You have a savior complex that hurts the people you supposedly want to help.
- fsckboy 5y agothe answer you are suggesting has higher deadweight losses to the economy and will make the poor (and everybody else) worse off, full stop. In exchange for which you claim a hypothesized benefit to pigs which I don't believe and also don't believe you have a basis for believing, and which sits on a very shaky foundation, see Dawkins's "The Selfish Gene"
- GaryTang 5y agoOP is not poor and thus is totally fine with paying more