4 ms·

I don't know how effective it would be to enforce such a policy. If you put up strict welfare requirements on farmers in your country then people would simply b

by jiggy2011 14y ago

I don't know how effective it would be to enforce such a policy. If you put up strict welfare requirements on farmers in your country then people would simply buy cheaper meat from elsewhere without the regulations. So it's actually more effective to have low welfare requirements that are only slightly better than those abroad in order to keep prices competitive so that people buy from the farms with marginally better conditions. The only other solution would be to impose a high import tax on meat from countries that did not meet the same standards.

DanBC 14y ago
English pig farmers faced this for a while. Vegetarians pushed for stricter welfare requirements, but then did not buy the product. English people for a long time were buying Danish bacon, thinking it was higher quality. (Luckily, Danish farmers voluntarily moved to higher welfare standards, and now English bacon has got a better reputation.) > So it's actually more effective to have low welfare requirements that are only slightly better than those abroad in order to keep prices competitive so that people buy from the farms with marginally better conditions. I think it's better to have decent welfare standards, and then to educate consumers about the differences between local farms and distant farms. Scandals like the "horse meat in ready meals" help to educate consumers about the importance of knowing where meat is produced. Import duties are also helpful, but there are problems with world trade organisations.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  That's an interesting point, animal welfare seems to be a relatively boolean issue. People who care about it go vegetarian/vegan whereas others will mostly go for cheap meat. I imagine there are not that many people who want to eat meat but are happy to pay much of a premium for better conditions. So pretty much all the demand for meat is demand for cheap meat rather than "ethical" meat. Maybe if vegetarians started eating meat but did so by creating market demand for meat produced under better conditions this would actually be a net benefit for animal welfare as some high density farming would be converted to lower density?
  - purephase 14y ago
    So, you're suggesting that vegetarians change their own lifestyles so that those with (to use your example) "less" moral quandaries and more fiscal concerns don't have to change theirs? Seems like an odd way to go about addressing the problem.
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      Kind of, if you have gone vegetarian for ethical reasons you have demonstrated willingness to change your behaviour.
      - purephase 14y ago
        There's an odd logic to this that I'm having difficulties refuting. Rationality for a win... ?
belorn 14y ago
I would fully support a increased import tax on meat from countries with lower standards of animal care. In Sweden where I live, meat produced here is about 2x more expensive than meat made elsewhere. I would also like to see a max amount of h20 in the meat, as meat made from "where it is cheapest" tend to be made of 20% water. Both would help in making regulated meat more competitive against imported unregulated meat.

DanBC 14y ago

English pig farmers faced this for a while. Vegetarians pushed for stricter welfare requirements, but then did not buy the product. English people for a long time were buying Danish bacon, thinking it was higher quality. (Luckily, Danish farmers voluntarily moved to higher welfare standards, and now English bacon has got a better reputation.) > So it's actually more effective to have low welfare requirements that are only slightly better than those abroad in order to keep prices competitive so that people buy from the farms with marginally better conditions. I think it's better to have decent welfare standards, and then to educate consumers about the differences between local farms and distant farms. Scandals like the "horse meat in ready meals" help to educate consumers about the importance of knowing where meat is produced. Import duties are also helpful, but there are problems with world trade organisations.

jiggy2011 14y ago
That's an interesting point, animal welfare seems to be a relatively boolean issue. People who care about it go vegetarian/vegan whereas others will mostly go for cheap meat. I imagine there are not that many people who want to eat meat but are happy to pay much of a premium for better conditions. So pretty much all the demand for meat is demand for cheap meat rather than "ethical" meat. Maybe if vegetarians started eating meat but did so by creating market demand for meat produced under better conditions this would actually be a net benefit for animal welfare as some high density farming would be converted to lower density?
- purephase 14y ago
  So, you're suggesting that vegetarians change their own lifestyles so that those with (to use your example) "less" moral quandaries and more fiscal concerns don't have to change theirs? Seems like an odd way to go about addressing the problem.
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    Kind of, if you have gone vegetarian for ethical reasons you have demonstrated willingness to change your behaviour.
    - purephase 14y ago
      There's an odd logic to this that I'm having difficulties refuting. Rationality for a win... ?

belorn 14y ago

I would fully support a increased import tax on meat from countries with lower standards of animal care. In Sweden where I live, meat produced here is about 2x more expensive than meat made elsewhere. I would also like to see a max amount of h20 in the meat, as meat made from "where it is cheapest" tend to be made of 20% water. Both would help in making regulated meat more competitive against imported unregulated meat.