3 ms·

> On its website, Smithfield Foods claims that its CO2 chambers lead to “painless loss of consciousness and death.” They made a claim, but did their best to pr

> On its website, Smithfield Foods claims that its CO2 chambers lead to “painless loss of consciousness and death.” They made a claim, but did their best to prevent any recordings from being made, and their claim turned out to be a knowing lie. How many more cases of companies asking us to trust them while hiding evidence will it take, before we finally learn that hiding implies we should assume the worst? Edit: Specific to this case, is there a good argument for not requiring that the method of slaughter is public? I.e. making those spy cameras mandated by law.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
> Specific to this case, is there a good argument for not requiring that the method of slaughter is public? That's an interesting idea. Unfortunately, there will likely be bad arguments ("I don't want to watch that!" ignoring the rebuttal of, "Don't watch it?") which become annoyingly persistent. Then "workarounds" like fake camera feeds. Still, requiring that this is auditable by the general public doesn't sound bad on its face when it's considered that the general public is eating the things being audited.