11 ms·

The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

130 points by jjxavier 13y ago

rooster8 13y ago
I've never seen a more compelling reason to become a vegetarian.
- CapitalistCartr 13y ago
  Meat in the USA is made in the Farm Industrial Complex, sure. But so is all the mass market food; becoming a vegetarian doesn't change that. And I am a vegetarian.
  - mc32 13y ago
    Meat in a wold with 6-billion+ will come from the FIC, in the USA or elsewhere. Heard about the horsemeat swap in the EU, or the tainted (with industrial chemicals and or cardboard) meat in China? It's not a US or EU or CN thing. It's a feeding 6-billion+ people on-the-cheap thing.
    - adamb_ 13y ago
      Meat persists not because it's "cheap", but because it's an ingrained part of society. Consider the feed conversion ratio. [1] There's an high cost to feeding livestock in the form of wasted food calories that could be avoided if humans consumed that "feed" directly. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio
      - mc32 13y ago
        Right, but to ignore that as people have more purchasing power they tend to buy more meats is to ignore a large part of the issue. It's really beside the point. People want meat and they want it cheaply. If you could steer (no pun) them away from meats, that'd help a lot, but in the mean time, there is a demand. Given the large demand, the only way to satisfy it is the FIC. If the world consisted of 100 million people, and everyone one wanted to eat half a kilo of meat per day, there would be little problem satisfying that need without a FIC.
  - dharmach 13y ago
    there are 2 aspects: 1) health 2) compassion
  - judk 13y ago
    "FIC" is a very broad term, encompassing a range of greater and lesser evils.
- dagw 13y ago
  There are farms that aren't like that. If you truly care about animal welfare make a point of only buying meat from these farms and be willing to pay the higher price.
  - astalwick 13y ago
    This is true, and you're absolutely right, however: This is way less convenient than it should be. Buying meat from individual farms is impractical on a day-to-day basis for most people. The problem is the anonymity of meat that is sold in grocery stores. You literally have no idea where your meat came from, how it was treated, how it was raised. Organic/free-range labels give you a little bit more info, but not a lot. Improved labelling would go a long way toward solving this problem for me. Perfect world: I'd like to be able to scan a barcode or QR code or something and see a basic chain of custody. Where the animal was raised, where it was slaughtered, where the meat was packed, etc. * EDIT: typo.
    - dagw 13y ago
      Completely agreed. The selection of good, humanely raised meats at most supermarkets is basically non-existent, and as you say it's basically impossible to tell where it came from. I think better and more rigorous labeling laws would solve many problems.
  - judk 13y ago
    If everyone did that, there would not be enough meat to around. Something has to lose, either the animals or our meat diet.
    - dagw 13y ago
      Define "enough". Prices would go up, meat consumption would go down, not all meals would include meat, but I doubt people would be forced to go completely without meat.
- Synaesthesia 13y ago
  Nothing wrong with being a vegetarian. Most of India's food is vegetarian.
twoodfin 13y ago
Infotainment! I know it's considered a failing of hn that commenters tend to attack the style rather than the content, but here the style is aggressively designed to provoke a particular reaction. I find that pretty insulting to the readers: "Don't bother to make up your own mind, let the sounds of dripping shit do it for you!" It's the multimedia equivalent of Taibbi's expletive-laced purple prose.
- judk 13y ago
  s/meat/NodeJS/g and it is a rather standard front-page article.
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    I can't help but think that "NodeJS" is a more appropriate HN topic than "meat".
ThreeFinger 13y ago
The real price are cancer, diabetes, strokes, heart attacks, obesity and a dirty world.
- watty 13y ago
  Everything in moderation my friend. Your same analogy can be used with all sorts of non-meat things.
- nova 13y ago
  You mean the ones caused by sugars, flours and vegetable oils?
- Zikes 13y ago
  Vegan propagandism; meat is not inherently unhealthy so as to cause those issues when consumed in moderation and as part of a balanced diet.
randyrand 13y ago
Its hard for me to seriously consider changing my opinion from an article that shows its biases so clearly. You show me the worst case scenario, but what is the average case? Also, what are the alternatives to these techniques? If you don't like cattle prodding, what do you suggest instead? Not eating meat or drinking milk is not going to be an acceptable answer. Edit: Not going to be acceptable as an alternative to animal cruelty to the American public. I think that is pretty objective in terms of what is actually feasible through legislation/cultural change.
- r0h1n 13y ago
  The article was about large-scale production of animals by multi-billion dollar conglomerates, not about veganism or vegetarianism (though there is of course a connection). Thus, it owes readers no alternative lifestyle choices. If you are disgusted by the reality presented in the article, then its incumbent upon you to find an alternative you find more humane. Cruelty to animals/non-vegetarianism/humane treatment of animals etc. are all highly subjective and personal choices. You won't find all the easy answers in one article.
- pickleport 13y ago
  Two questions: 1. What makes you think this is the worst case? (That is, not comparable to the average case.) 2. Why is it unacceptable to stop eating meat or drinking milk?
- beaker52 13y ago
  It's not about worst case, best case or average case. The fact that in all cases, animals are born (without choice) into captivity, for the purpose of having their life exploited or ended, is one of the most compelling reasons you should consider your consumption of meat and whether it's really worth it.
  - buckbova 13y ago
    That's what you think "it's about". The article was not making a judgement that raising animals for slaughter is wrong.
nimble 13y ago
I think its unfortunate that opposition to torturing animals is often lumped in with opposition to merely killing animals.
- asciimo 13y ago
  If we have the right to kill, why don't we have the right to torture?
  - HNaTTY 13y ago
    Because there is a purpose to killing, but the only purpose for torture in this case is the maximization of profit.
    - crisnoble 13y ago
      The companies condoning the torture are publicly traded companies which are legally obligated to maximize profits. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that this is happening on a massive scale. They only ways we can stop it are to create new regulations (the ones there today are ignored and the government is not staffed to enforce them) or for the public to stop buying from companies who torture animals. Both scenarios seem pretty unlikely to me, so I am not sure what to do.
  - epochwolf 13y ago
    The very act of torture requires a level of emotional depravity that merely killing does not.
    - asciimo 13y ago
      You presuppose that torture is always willful. In the context of human-scale meat production, it seems unavoidable. Yet we accept this, as it is necessary for consumer demands. The employees of factory farm facilities may very well suffer "emotional depravity;" not as a prerequisite for their duties, but as a result. The nature of torture aside, taking the life of a sentient being is the ultimate violation of its rights. I don't see how any act less than killing can be considered morally worse than killing.
wiredfool 13y ago
-1 for the autoplaying audio, even in a background tab.
Roelven 13y ago
I'm surprised and happy to see a big outlet like the Rolling Stone doing such an extensive feature on the meat topic. Yes, they present it completely biased and it's clear what the motivations of the publisher here are, but I think it's important to finally get visibility on what meat consumption actually means. It's fascinating to see that people who want to eat meat are okay with the fact that we're so detached from what it actually is. The objectification of everything in this world is definitely playing a part in this, we just remove the moral context of the products we buy so we don't have to think about it, problem solved. I eat meat, but I am struggling with where I buy it, what I pay for it and how much I eat it. I recommend reading Eating Animals by Jonathan Saffran Foer, where he leaves the decision up to you but is providing you with interesting thought experiments (why not eat dog meat?) and information so you can make up your own mind. It is unfortunately written about the American meat industry, I'd love to see exposure like that on European countries as well.
contextual 13y ago
If the suffering of animals matters, then eating meat is morally wrong. Animals are non-human persons who are aware of their own existence and who feel a wide range of emotions, just like we do. Killing animals may still be acceptable in western society, but it's wrong. It's wrong just as slavery in the United States in the 18th and 19th century was once acceptable but wrong. Just as hanging, drawing and quartering to an audience of thousands in Europe was acceptable but wrong. To disregard the pain and suffering of animal persons without regard for their interests - just because they're not human, is a form of racism. Peter Singer[1] calls it 'speciesism'. We don't need technological advances in this society as much as we need advances in morality. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
- ebbv 13y ago
  The only animal suffering I'm worried about right now is the horse you're on.
- gambiting 13y ago
  So is there no middle ground then? Is it a simple case of you can't have one without another? I believe that you can eat meat, provided that animals live in a decent,stress-free environment. I know it's very hard to find meat that carries any sort of a guarantee on it,but at least here in EU "free range" and "organic" mean something that is legally enforceable, so every time I buy chicken/beef/pork that is organic I hope that these animals were kept in good conditions. I do feel sorry for the American readers,for whom the meat industry is just a massive black box with no way of finding out what is going on - and I genuinely believe that if I lived in America, I would have stopped eating meat too,for that very reason.
  - contextual 13y ago
    By abstaining and choosing plant-based alternatives to meat, we stop factory farming, and we support the humane treatment and dignity of animals.
  - kaoD 13y ago
    No, there's no middle ground. Killing is killing. Would it be moral to kill you if I'd let you live in a decent, stress-free environment before your death? Would it be moral to raise human children, give them a nice childhood and then kill them before they reach adulthood because they're super tasty then? I'm not saying I agree (or don't) with GP, just noting that you missed his point.
codex_irl 13y ago
ugh...this is the reason I have not eaten poultry for the last 10 years, except when I am back in Ireland where I can buy organic, free-range chicken from a farmer....it might cost $27 a pop, but as my grandma says....it tastes & has the texture of what chicken used to be like. I used to love bacon / pork, but cannot eat that stuff anymore after reading about how toxins are formed / retained in the meat. The only beef I eat is grass-fed pasture raised - no hormones or antibiotics. My opinion is that you pay for your health one way or the other, either in preventing illness or after you become ill, there is no escaping the high cost of staying healthy in western, urban centers.
- MartinCron 13y ago
  You can get good poultry in the US if you go out of your way for it and are willing to pay for it. Even if you leave ethics out of it, the taste and texture difference between a $17 chicken and an $8 chicken is pretty huge.
- api 13y ago
  "there is no escaping the high cost of staying healthy in western, urban centers." You can go largely vegetarian, eating meat only rarely. But you have to take care that your diet is balanced. It's also a great way to save energy. I recall reading once that going even mostly vegetarian saves more energy than trading in a Hummer for a Prius.
hawkharris 13y ago
Stories like this one make me even more excited about the possibility of producing meat in a lab on a larger scale.
grecy 13y ago
A couple of years ago I moved to the Yukon and had the opportunity to go Moose hunting. I really didn't know if I'd be OK with killing such a large animal and "getting down to it" and have found to experience to be quite powerful. There is a lot of respect for the animal and we treat every square centimeter of edible meat with the utmost care. It's quite a strange sensation to be working so hard (it's extremely heavy and time consuming to field dress such a large animal) but have this feeling that it's the right thing to be doing. Somehow, I know my ancestors have been doing this for tens of thousands of years. When I cook at home I make certain that every plate is eaten or saved for leftovers. I would never let someone simply scrape that into the trash, as I might have done when buying shrink wrapped meat from Safeway. It's a highly rewarding and enlightening process which I highly, highly recommend to anyone that eats meat. UPDATE: I've been putting the finishing touches on a blog entry about this experience and photos from my first moose hunting trip.... I'll try to have it done later today, the post will be at the top of http://theroadchoseme.com http://theroadchoseme.com when it's done.
- famousactress 13y ago
  I really wish more people who eat meat would put themselves in a position to experience this. It's awesome that you took away so much respect for the animal and the process. I'd love to see that kind of awareness at scale. (full disclosure: I'm vegan)
  - Jgrubb 13y ago
    Q: How do you know if someone is a vegan? A: THEY'LL TELL YOU. (full disclosure: married to a vegan, I couldn't resist)
    - famousactress 13y ago
      FWIW I mentioned it because the conversation is about eating meat, not because I need you to think I'm awesome. In fact, I think the joke has some very relevant truth to it. I think heralding veganism is a ridiculous mission from a practical standpoint, and lots of people and organizations are spinning their wheels converting a tiny fraction of the population to a totally meatless diet when instead it makes so much more sense to focus on even mildly reducing meat consumption (or waste) from a much broader segment of the population.
WalterSear 13y ago
The opinions on this topic around here are so depressing given how easy, cheap and healthy it is to live without meat, or dairy, for that matter.
- bane 13y ago
  > how easy, cheap and healthy it is to live without meat, or dairy, for that matter. Given the volume and nature of advice in the vegan community for how not to hurt yourself eating as a vegan, I would say that "easy" or "healthy" is not a word that could be reasonably associated with a sustained, long-term vegan diet. Even long-term vegans have difficulty in getting complete nutrition on their diet which is offered almost by default in a basic omnivorous diet.
  - WalterSear 13y ago
    My doctors would disagree with that. Like I said, it's depressing how much ignorance is thrown around here on this topic.
    - bane 13y ago
      You'd be surprised at how well studied I am on veganism.
      - WalterSear 13y ago
        Yes, considering your comment, I'll be surprised if you know anything about it.
        bane 13y ago
        We're debating elsewhere in this thread. You tell me. I know the results of many short and long term observational and experimental studies of veganism and several other chosen diets and veganism, and the long-term health outcomes of the diet, do not inspire confidence that the majority population of vegans know almost anything about basic nutrition. In fact I've never even seen a study where less than 50% of any given vegan population were not deficient in something as basic and well understood as B12.
iambateman 13y ago
"If you’re a broiler chicken... you weigh at least double what you would in the wild, but lack the muscle even to waddle, let alone fly." So...yeah chickens don't fly. Otherwise this article is good. There's a lot to be said for responsible consumption.
- colanderman 13y ago
  From Wikipedia: Domestic chickens are not capable of long distance flight, although lighter birds are generally capable of flying for short distances, such as over fences or into trees (where they would naturally roost). Chickens may occasionally fly briefly to explore their surroundings, but generally do so only to flee perceived danger. So…yeah chickens do fly short distances, unless they weigh too much.
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    The flight of chickens is much like that of wild turkeys, which they resemble somewhat. A turkey flies when it roosts at night and whenever it sees or hears a predator, which may not happen every day. The point is, since these two similar species have similar flight habits, and one of them is not domesticated, it's misleading for the editors to say "domestic chickens are not capable..." as if there were some ancient ancestor chicken that soared with the eagles.
ra3 13y ago
Too bad its on Rollingstone. Can't visit that site after they glorified the boston bomber on their cover.
vjvj 13y ago
I tried to eat only expensive meat to reduce the chances that the animals it comes from are bred in conditions such as those described in the article. The idea was that naturally this would reduce the amount of meat I ate as the cost of the meal went up. Found it wasn't possible. - There were no expensive ready meal options at my local supermarket - Labeling contains no information about what kind of environment animals are brought up in Solution: - Enforce labeling about environment animals are kept in - More NGOs need to take initiative to make it easier to access information - e.g. packaging should tell me name of factory meat was made in. I should be able to go online and view (ideally) live webcams for welfare and if not at least periodic photos of all areas where animals are 'processed' Ultimately I wish I had the will power to turn fully vegetarian but my issue isn't with eating meat as such - more that I don't want to be a part of any operation that kills animals en masse and I hate words like 'processed' being associated with my food and live animals. Working post, feel free to build on it.
- vlod 13y ago
  >There were no expensive ready meal options at my local supermarket - Labeling contains no information about what kind of environment animals are brought up in I think you know why. :) >Ultimately I wish I had the will power to turn fully vegetarian The way I started (I'm a veggie now) is not to fully eliminate meat completely for your diet, but just 1 day a week. The way to look at it is not that you're missing out on meat for 1 day, but as an opportunity to try out non-meat options. Here's some suggestions: go to a middle eastern place and order falafel wraps, or tofu next time you go to a Chinese place. Also there's lots of Indian food that's veggie friendly. i.e. Indulge your palette in food that you generally wouldn't try. You might like it!
  - vjvj 13y ago
    Thanks for the tips Vlod. I do actually eat veggie quite a lot and enjoy actively trying out the vegetarian stuff that I wouldn't without the mindset that I have now. My issue is that when you're traveling or you just come across a really tasty meat dish, that's when I lack the willpower to be 100% vegetarian. So all in all, I eat far less meat than the average person and I have cut down intentionally but I am not vegetarian all of the time.
bane 13y ago
How do you know there are vegans on HN? Post anything about eating critters or dietary subjects. I'm about 1 more story from just flagging these from HN because the discourse on these subjects is as predictable and brain dead as a Daring Fireball discussion.
- strict9 13y ago
  Flag a view you disagree with? How original and insightful. Well researched long form journalism is something HN discussion desperately needs more of. Whatever your opinion on eating animals is, where our food comes from is a discussion that needs to be had. We need less of Stallman and Bitcoin.
  - bane 13y ago
    It's not the article I object to, it's the vegans crawling out of the woodwork throwing heresay, poorly researched studies, outright lies and moral browbeating around that I find endlessly tiresome.
    - aaren 13y ago
      Then engage. This is an issue that people feel strongly about, in both directions. Both sides make all kinds of strange claims sometimes but there is good stuff there too. I think the widely varying level of argument shows that this is an infant discussion that needs to mature. It is only going to do that if we keep talking about it.
      - bane 13y ago
        You'll see that I have here. While doing so I came across some new bizarre claims by vegan publications I hadn't seen before like "omnivores are also b12 deficient!" and other absolutely unbelievable garbage. It's amazing to me that anybody who claims to be a thinking animal can fall for what are essentially outright lies needed to justify an extreme life-style.
api 13y ago
Nature is full of similar cruelty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRPzPjOR9lc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRPzPjOR9lc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarantula_hawk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarantula_hawk
conductr 13y ago
What do we know about these mega-meat companies? 1) they do all this crap for the money 2) they will do whatever it takes to protect that cash flow If you believe those statements, it stands to reason, the only thing these companies will ever respond to is competition. I think PETA, HSUS, and the over activists need to stop focusing on trying to get these companies to do the right thing because they never will when profit is their motivator. We also know the demand for meat is going to remain high in perpetuity. What the activists need to focus on is a model which can compete and is humane enough for their standards. Yes, the activists need to turn into farmers or at least partner with farmers willing and able to scale up to the size of these meat companies. They need to put them out of business; or make consumers not want to do business with them, by giving consumers another option (trying to expose them, and shame consumers for eating meat will never scale). So, start a farm. Innovate on every process so that it's humane and cost effective. Focus on scale, without scale you can never compete or put a meaningful dent in their market share. Maybe it is never as cheap as the other guys, but it's better - and you can sell that. It will be a slow difficult battle, but I think the activists are used to that. Over time, you can create a "PETA approved" meat stamp, market that to consumers, and much like the "organic" movement - a great deal of people will be willing to pay for what is better.
robomartin 13y ago
Cruelty is, of course, despicable and should be stopped. The vast majority of growers are decent and moral. It's easy for activists to find and focus on bad apples and make it seem like all meat suppliers are criminal monsters. This is simply not true. This would be like meat eating activists finding bad actors in the farming industry to then acuse the entirety of that industry with criminal behaviour. Ridiculous. As for vegan vs. meat. Well, few things in life have more evidence than the support provided by millions of years and thousands of species who would not have survived had they not used other species' meat for food, for energy and nutrition. The species that did evolve to survive on plants (cows, for example) have radically different anatomy and mechanisms evolved over millions of years of adaptation to that diet. We are meat eaters. More accurately, we are omnivores. The only reason one could even consider going vegan is that we've industrialized food production and distribution. Drop two people on an island. One of them is constrained to eating plants while the other is able to eat anything, including any animal, plant and even his left foot. Over time the vegan will either get horribly sick and maybe even die. In addition to that, he would have to devote huge chuncks of the day to finding vegan food. The omnivore could easily ingest all the energy and nutrients needed to function at a high level of exertion for a full day during one meal. One could focus most of his time trying to get off the island while the other has to focus on eating constantly. Here's another way to look at it. Veganism can be hypocritical in that one's ability to choose this approach would not exist without millions of years of eating meat. You are who you are and you exist because our ancestors, including your parents, grandparents, etc. killed and ate meat. A vegan is only possible because of millions of years of eating meat. Our species would not exist without eating meat. Yet another view is that millions of meat eaters make veganism possible. The vast majority of the people in a vegan's food supply chain are almost guaranteed to be meat eaters. How much of a hypocrite does someone have to be to rationalize eating vegan when tens of thousands of meat eaters --killing and eating hundreds of thousands of animals-- are quite literally feeding them their vegan diet. A vegan who makes sure their entire food supply chain is vegan is, of course, being absolutely honest in support of their choice.
- vlod 13y ago
  > The vast majority of growers are decent and moral. Really? I think a lot of these decent/moral farmers are getting replaced by huge corporations that are only interested in profit. >Drop two people on an island. Sigh This point is taking it to an extreme. Yes, I'm a veggie/vegan becz of the environment I'm in. Put people on an island and most likely everyone will turn into a raving beast (aka Lord of the Flies). >The omnivore could easily ingest all the energy and nutrients needed to function Are you some crazy survivalist? I would guess not. Also most of the (let's say US) population couldn't survive. Most people get their meat from fast food restaurants or else packaged in a supermarket. Scenario, you land on a desert island. You don't have a gun or a knife. You think the mass population could trap and kill a wild pig? You need training to do something like that. Even something smaller like a wild bird or some sort of rodent is not easy. Then there's the question of having to cook it. Do you think most of the population can start a fire without matches?
genofon 13y ago
humans are animals, nothing more, nothing less. I'm not against improving animal's conditions, but I have the impression that most of the activist don't have much contact with nature and they feel that we are superior, so we don't follow nature's rule. the reality is that a lot of people still struggle to survive like other animals, and it can be brutal.

130 points by jjxavier 13y ago

rooster8 13y ago

I've never seen a more compelling reason to become a vegetarian.

CapitalistCartr 13y ago
Meat in the USA is made in the Farm Industrial Complex, sure. But so is all the mass market food; becoming a vegetarian doesn't change that. And I am a vegetarian.
- mc32 13y ago
  Meat in a wold with 6-billion+ will come from the FIC, in the USA or elsewhere. Heard about the horsemeat swap in the EU, or the tainted (with industrial chemicals and or cardboard) meat in China? It's not a US or EU or CN thing. It's a feeding 6-billion+ people on-the-cheap thing.
  - adamb_ 13y ago
    Meat persists not because it's "cheap", but because it's an ingrained part of society. Consider the feed conversion ratio. [1] There's an high cost to feeding livestock in the form of wasted food calories that could be avoided if humans consumed that "feed" directly. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio
    - mc32 13y ago
      Right, but to ignore that as people have more purchasing power they tend to buy more meats is to ignore a large part of the issue. It's really beside the point. People want meat and they want it cheaply. If you could steer (no pun) them away from meats, that'd help a lot, but in the mean time, there is a demand. Given the large demand, the only way to satisfy it is the FIC. If the world consisted of 100 million people, and everyone one wanted to eat half a kilo of meat per day, there would be little problem satisfying that need without a FIC.
- dharmach 13y ago
  there are 2 aspects: 1) health 2) compassion
- judk 13y ago
  "FIC" is a very broad term, encompassing a range of greater and lesser evils.
dagw 13y ago
There are farms that aren't like that. If you truly care about animal welfare make a point of only buying meat from these farms and be willing to pay the higher price.
- astalwick 13y ago
  This is true, and you're absolutely right, however: This is way less convenient than it should be. Buying meat from individual farms is impractical on a day-to-day basis for most people. The problem is the anonymity of meat that is sold in grocery stores. You literally have no idea where your meat came from, how it was treated, how it was raised. Organic/free-range labels give you a little bit more info, but not a lot. Improved labelling would go a long way toward solving this problem for me. Perfect world: I'd like to be able to scan a barcode or QR code or something and see a basic chain of custody. Where the animal was raised, where it was slaughtered, where the meat was packed, etc. * EDIT: typo.
  - dagw 13y ago
    Completely agreed. The selection of good, humanely raised meats at most supermarkets is basically non-existent, and as you say it's basically impossible to tell where it came from. I think better and more rigorous labeling laws would solve many problems.
- judk 13y ago
  If everyone did that, there would not be enough meat to around. Something has to lose, either the animals or our meat diet.
  - dagw 13y ago
    Define "enough". Prices would go up, meat consumption would go down, not all meals would include meat, but I doubt people would be forced to go completely without meat.
Synaesthesia 13y ago
Nothing wrong with being a vegetarian. Most of India's food is vegetarian.

twoodfin 13y ago

Infotainment! I know it's considered a failing of hn that commenters tend to attack the style rather than the content, but here the style is aggressively designed to provoke a particular reaction. I find that pretty insulting to the readers: "Don't bother to make up your own mind, let the sounds of dripping shit do it for you!" It's the multimedia equivalent of Taibbi's expletive-laced purple prose.

judk 13y ago
s/meat/NodeJS/g and it is a rather standard front-page article.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  I can't help but think that "NodeJS" is a more appropriate HN topic than "meat".

ThreeFinger 13y ago

The real price are cancer, diabetes, strokes, heart attacks, obesity and a dirty world.

watty 13y ago
Everything in moderation my friend. Your same analogy can be used with all sorts of non-meat things.
nova 13y ago
You mean the ones caused by sugars, flours and vegetable oils?
Zikes 13y ago
Vegan propagandism; meat is not inherently unhealthy so as to cause those issues when consumed in moderation and as part of a balanced diet.

randyrand 13y ago

Its hard for me to seriously consider changing my opinion from an article that shows its biases so clearly. You show me the worst case scenario, but what is the average case? Also, what are the alternatives to these techniques? If you don't like cattle prodding, what do you suggest instead? Not eating meat or drinking milk is not going to be an acceptable answer. Edit: Not going to be acceptable as an alternative to animal cruelty to the American public. I think that is pretty objective in terms of what is actually feasible through legislation/cultural change.

r0h1n 13y ago
The article was about large-scale production of animals by multi-billion dollar conglomerates, not about veganism or vegetarianism (though there is of course a connection). Thus, it owes readers no alternative lifestyle choices. If you are disgusted by the reality presented in the article, then its incumbent upon you to find an alternative you find more humane. Cruelty to animals/non-vegetarianism/humane treatment of animals etc. are all highly subjective and personal choices. You won't find all the easy answers in one article.
pickleport 13y ago
Two questions: 1. What makes you think this is the worst case? (That is, not comparable to the average case.) 2. Why is it unacceptable to stop eating meat or drinking milk?
beaker52 13y ago
It's not about worst case, best case or average case. The fact that in all cases, animals are born (without choice) into captivity, for the purpose of having their life exploited or ended, is one of the most compelling reasons you should consider your consumption of meat and whether it's really worth it.
- buckbova 13y ago
  That's what you think "it's about". The article was not making a judgement that raising animals for slaughter is wrong.

nimble 13y ago

I think its unfortunate that opposition to torturing animals is often lumped in with opposition to merely killing animals.

asciimo 13y ago
If we have the right to kill, why don't we have the right to torture?
- HNaTTY 13y ago
  Because there is a purpose to killing, but the only purpose for torture in this case is the maximization of profit.
  - crisnoble 13y ago
    The companies condoning the torture are publicly traded companies which are legally obligated to maximize profits. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that this is happening on a massive scale. They only ways we can stop it are to create new regulations (the ones there today are ignored and the government is not staffed to enforce them) or for the public to stop buying from companies who torture animals. Both scenarios seem pretty unlikely to me, so I am not sure what to do.
- epochwolf 13y ago
  The very act of torture requires a level of emotional depravity that merely killing does not.
  - asciimo 13y ago
    You presuppose that torture is always willful. In the context of human-scale meat production, it seems unavoidable. Yet we accept this, as it is necessary for consumer demands. The employees of factory farm facilities may very well suffer "emotional depravity;" not as a prerequisite for their duties, but as a result. The nature of torture aside, taking the life of a sentient being is the ultimate violation of its rights. I don't see how any act less than killing can be considered morally worse than killing.

wiredfool 13y ago

-1 for the autoplaying audio, even in a background tab.

Roelven 13y ago

I'm surprised and happy to see a big outlet like the Rolling Stone doing such an extensive feature on the meat topic. Yes, they present it completely biased and it's clear what the motivations of the publisher here are, but I think it's important to finally get visibility on what meat consumption actually means. It's fascinating to see that people who want to eat meat are okay with the fact that we're so detached from what it actually is. The objectification of everything in this world is definitely playing a part in this, we just remove the moral context of the products we buy so we don't have to think about it, problem solved. I eat meat, but I am struggling with where I buy it, what I pay for it and how much I eat it. I recommend reading Eating Animals by Jonathan Saffran Foer, where he leaves the decision up to you but is providing you with interesting thought experiments (why not eat dog meat?) and information so you can make up your own mind. It is unfortunately written about the American meat industry, I'd love to see exposure like that on European countries as well.

contextual 13y ago

If the suffering of animals matters, then eating meat is morally wrong. Animals are non-human persons who are aware of their own existence and who feel a wide range of emotions, just like we do. Killing animals may still be acceptable in western society, but it's wrong. It's wrong just as slavery in the United States in the 18th and 19th century was once acceptable but wrong. Just as hanging, drawing and quartering to an audience of thousands in Europe was acceptable but wrong. To disregard the pain and suffering of animal persons without regard for their interests - just because they're not human, is a form of racism. Peter Singer[1] calls it 'speciesism'. We don't need technological advances in this society as much as we need advances in morality. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

ebbv 13y ago
The only animal suffering I'm worried about right now is the horse you're on.
gambiting 13y ago
So is there no middle ground then? Is it a simple case of you can't have one without another? I believe that you can eat meat, provided that animals live in a decent,stress-free environment. I know it's very hard to find meat that carries any sort of a guarantee on it,but at least here in EU "free range" and "organic" mean something that is legally enforceable, so every time I buy chicken/beef/pork that is organic I hope that these animals were kept in good conditions. I do feel sorry for the American readers,for whom the meat industry is just a massive black box with no way of finding out what is going on - and I genuinely believe that if I lived in America, I would have stopped eating meat too,for that very reason.
- contextual 13y ago
  By abstaining and choosing plant-based alternatives to meat, we stop factory farming, and we support the humane treatment and dignity of animals.
- kaoD 13y ago
  No, there's no middle ground. Killing is killing. Would it be moral to kill you if I'd let you live in a decent, stress-free environment before your death? Would it be moral to raise human children, give them a nice childhood and then kill them before they reach adulthood because they're super tasty then? I'm not saying I agree (or don't) with GP, just noting that you missed his point.

codex_irl 13y ago

ugh...this is the reason I have not eaten poultry for the last 10 years, except when I am back in Ireland where I can buy organic, free-range chicken from a farmer....it might cost $27 a pop, but as my grandma says....it tastes & has the texture of what chicken used to be like. I used to love bacon / pork, but cannot eat that stuff anymore after reading about how toxins are formed / retained in the meat. The only beef I eat is grass-fed pasture raised - no hormones or antibiotics. My opinion is that you pay for your health one way or the other, either in preventing illness or after you become ill, there is no escaping the high cost of staying healthy in western, urban centers.

MartinCron 13y ago
You can get good poultry in the US if you go out of your way for it and are willing to pay for it. Even if you leave ethics out of it, the taste and texture difference between a $17 chicken and an $8 chicken is pretty huge.
api 13y ago
"there is no escaping the high cost of staying healthy in western, urban centers." You can go largely vegetarian, eating meat only rarely. But you have to take care that your diet is balanced. It's also a great way to save energy. I recall reading once that going even mostly vegetarian saves more energy than trading in a Hummer for a Prius.

hawkharris 13y ago

Stories like this one make me even more excited about the possibility of producing meat in a lab on a larger scale.

grecy 13y ago

A couple of years ago I moved to the Yukon and had the opportunity to go Moose hunting. I really didn't know if I'd be OK with killing such a large animal and "getting down to it" and have found to experience to be quite powerful. There is a lot of respect for the animal and we treat every square centimeter of edible meat with the utmost care. It's quite a strange sensation to be working so hard (it's extremely heavy and time consuming to field dress such a large animal) but have this feeling that it's the right thing to be doing. Somehow, I know my ancestors have been doing this for tens of thousands of years. When I cook at home I make certain that every plate is eaten or saved for leftovers. I would never let someone simply scrape that into the trash, as I might have done when buying shrink wrapped meat from Safeway. It's a highly rewarding and enlightening process which I highly, highly recommend to anyone that eats meat. UPDATE: I've been putting the finishing touches on a blog entry about this experience and photos from my first moose hunting trip.... I'll try to have it done later today, the post will be at the top of http://theroadchoseme.com http://theroadchoseme.com when it's done.

famousactress 13y ago
I really wish more people who eat meat would put themselves in a position to experience this. It's awesome that you took away so much respect for the animal and the process. I'd love to see that kind of awareness at scale. (full disclosure: I'm vegan)
- Jgrubb 13y ago
  Q: How do you know if someone is a vegan? A: THEY'LL TELL YOU. (full disclosure: married to a vegan, I couldn't resist)
  - famousactress 13y ago
    FWIW I mentioned it because the conversation is about eating meat, not because I need you to think I'm awesome. In fact, I think the joke has some very relevant truth to it. I think heralding veganism is a ridiculous mission from a practical standpoint, and lots of people and organizations are spinning their wheels converting a tiny fraction of the population to a totally meatless diet when instead it makes so much more sense to focus on even mildly reducing meat consumption (or waste) from a much broader segment of the population.

WalterSear 13y ago

The opinions on this topic around here are so depressing given how easy, cheap and healthy it is to live without meat, or dairy, for that matter.

bane 13y ago
> how easy, cheap and healthy it is to live without meat, or dairy, for that matter. Given the volume and nature of advice in the vegan community for how not to hurt yourself eating as a vegan, I would say that "easy" or "healthy" is not a word that could be reasonably associated with a sustained, long-term vegan diet. Even long-term vegans have difficulty in getting complete nutrition on their diet which is offered almost by default in a basic omnivorous diet.
- WalterSear 13y ago
  My doctors would disagree with that. Like I said, it's depressing how much ignorance is thrown around here on this topic.
  - bane 13y ago
    You'd be surprised at how well studied I am on veganism.
    - WalterSear 13y ago
      Yes, considering your comment, I'll be surprised if you know anything about it.
      - bane 13y ago
        We're debating elsewhere in this thread. You tell me. I know the results of many short and long term observational and experimental studies of veganism and several other chosen diets and veganism, and the long-term health outcomes of the diet, do not inspire confidence that the majority population of vegans know almost anything about basic nutrition. In fact I've never even seen a study where less than 50% of any given vegan population were not deficient in something as basic and well understood as B12.

iambateman 13y ago

"If you’re a broiler chicken... you weigh at least double what you would in the wild, but lack the muscle even to waddle, let alone fly." So...yeah chickens don't fly. Otherwise this article is good. There's a lot to be said for responsible consumption.

colanderman 13y ago
From Wikipedia: Domestic chickens are not capable of long distance flight, although lighter birds are generally capable of flying for short distances, such as over fences or into trees (where they would naturally roost). Chickens may occasionally fly briefly to explore their surroundings, but generally do so only to flee perceived danger. So…yeah chickens do fly short distances, unless they weigh too much.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  The flight of chickens is much like that of wild turkeys, which they resemble somewhat. A turkey flies when it roosts at night and whenever it sees or hears a predator, which may not happen every day. The point is, since these two similar species have similar flight habits, and one of them is not domesticated, it's misleading for the editors to say "domestic chickens are not capable..." as if there were some ancient ancestor chicken that soared with the eagles.

ra3 13y ago

Too bad its on Rollingstone. Can't visit that site after they glorified the boston bomber on their cover.

vjvj 13y ago

I tried to eat only expensive meat to reduce the chances that the animals it comes from are bred in conditions such as those described in the article. The idea was that naturally this would reduce the amount of meat I ate as the cost of the meal went up. Found it wasn't possible. - There were no expensive ready meal options at my local supermarket - Labeling contains no information about what kind of environment animals are brought up in Solution: - Enforce labeling about environment animals are kept in - More NGOs need to take initiative to make it easier to access information - e.g. packaging should tell me name of factory meat was made in. I should be able to go online and view (ideally) live webcams for welfare and if not at least periodic photos of all areas where animals are 'processed' Ultimately I wish I had the will power to turn fully vegetarian but my issue isn't with eating meat as such - more that I don't want to be a part of any operation that kills animals en masse and I hate words like 'processed' being associated with my food and live animals. Working post, feel free to build on it.

vlod 13y ago
>There were no expensive ready meal options at my local supermarket - Labeling contains no information about what kind of environment animals are brought up in I think you know why. :) >Ultimately I wish I had the will power to turn fully vegetarian The way I started (I'm a veggie now) is not to fully eliminate meat completely for your diet, but just 1 day a week. The way to look at it is not that you're missing out on meat for 1 day, but as an opportunity to try out non-meat options. Here's some suggestions: go to a middle eastern place and order falafel wraps, or tofu next time you go to a Chinese place. Also there's lots of Indian food that's veggie friendly. i.e. Indulge your palette in food that you generally wouldn't try. You might like it!
- vjvj 13y ago
  Thanks for the tips Vlod. I do actually eat veggie quite a lot and enjoy actively trying out the vegetarian stuff that I wouldn't without the mindset that I have now. My issue is that when you're traveling or you just come across a really tasty meat dish, that's when I lack the willpower to be 100% vegetarian. So all in all, I eat far less meat than the average person and I have cut down intentionally but I am not vegetarian all of the time.

bane 13y ago

How do you know there are vegans on HN? Post anything about eating critters or dietary subjects. I'm about 1 more story from just flagging these from HN because the discourse on these subjects is as predictable and brain dead as a Daring Fireball discussion.

strict9 13y ago
Flag a view you disagree with? How original and insightful. Well researched long form journalism is something HN discussion desperately needs more of. Whatever your opinion on eating animals is, where our food comes from is a discussion that needs to be had. We need less of Stallman and Bitcoin.
- bane 13y ago
  It's not the article I object to, it's the vegans crawling out of the woodwork throwing heresay, poorly researched studies, outright lies and moral browbeating around that I find endlessly tiresome.
  - aaren 13y ago
    Then engage. This is an issue that people feel strongly about, in both directions. Both sides make all kinds of strange claims sometimes but there is good stuff there too. I think the widely varying level of argument shows that this is an infant discussion that needs to mature. It is only going to do that if we keep talking about it.
    - bane 13y ago
      You'll see that I have here. While doing so I came across some new bizarre claims by vegan publications I hadn't seen before like "omnivores are also b12 deficient!" and other absolutely unbelievable garbage. It's amazing to me that anybody who claims to be a thinking animal can fall for what are essentially outright lies needed to justify an extreme life-style.

api 13y ago

Nature is full of similar cruelty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRPzPjOR9lc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRPzPjOR9lc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarantula_hawk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarantula_hawk

conductr 13y ago

What do we know about these mega-meat companies? 1) they do all this crap for the money 2) they will do whatever it takes to protect that cash flow If you believe those statements, it stands to reason, the only thing these companies will ever respond to is competition. I think PETA, HSUS, and the over activists need to stop focusing on trying to get these companies to do the right thing because they never will when profit is their motivator. We also know the demand for meat is going to remain high in perpetuity. What the activists need to focus on is a model which can compete and is humane enough for their standards. Yes, the activists need to turn into farmers or at least partner with farmers willing and able to scale up to the size of these meat companies. They need to put them out of business; or make consumers not want to do business with them, by giving consumers another option (trying to expose them, and shame consumers for eating meat will never scale). So, start a farm. Innovate on every process so that it's humane and cost effective. Focus on scale, without scale you can never compete or put a meaningful dent in their market share. Maybe it is never as cheap as the other guys, but it's better - and you can sell that. It will be a slow difficult battle, but I think the activists are used to that. Over time, you can create a "PETA approved" meat stamp, market that to consumers, and much like the "organic" movement - a great deal of people will be willing to pay for what is better.

robomartin 13y ago

Cruelty is, of course, despicable and should be stopped. The vast majority of growers are decent and moral. It's easy for activists to find and focus on bad apples and make it seem like all meat suppliers are criminal monsters. This is simply not true. This would be like meat eating activists finding bad actors in the farming industry to then acuse the entirety of that industry with criminal behaviour. Ridiculous. As for vegan vs. meat. Well, few things in life have more evidence than the support provided by millions of years and thousands of species who would not have survived had they not used other species' meat for food, for energy and nutrition. The species that did evolve to survive on plants (cows, for example) have radically different anatomy and mechanisms evolved over millions of years of adaptation to that diet. We are meat eaters. More accurately, we are omnivores. The only reason one could even consider going vegan is that we've industrialized food production and distribution. Drop two people on an island. One of them is constrained to eating plants while the other is able to eat anything, including any animal, plant and even his left foot. Over time the vegan will either get horribly sick and maybe even die. In addition to that, he would have to devote huge chuncks of the day to finding vegan food. The omnivore could easily ingest all the energy and nutrients needed to function at a high level of exertion for a full day during one meal. One could focus most of his time trying to get off the island while the other has to focus on eating constantly. Here's another way to look at it. Veganism can be hypocritical in that one's ability to choose this approach would not exist without millions of years of eating meat. You are who you are and you exist because our ancestors, including your parents, grandparents, etc. killed and ate meat. A vegan is only possible because of millions of years of eating meat. Our species would not exist without eating meat. Yet another view is that millions of meat eaters make veganism possible. The vast majority of the people in a vegan's food supply chain are almost guaranteed to be meat eaters. How much of a hypocrite does someone have to be to rationalize eating vegan when tens of thousands of meat eaters --killing and eating hundreds of thousands of animals-- are quite literally feeding them their vegan diet. A vegan who makes sure their entire food supply chain is vegan is, of course, being absolutely honest in support of their choice.

vlod 13y ago
> The vast majority of growers are decent and moral. Really? I think a lot of these decent/moral farmers are getting replaced by huge corporations that are only interested in profit. >Drop two people on an island. Sigh This point is taking it to an extreme. Yes, I'm a veggie/vegan becz of the environment I'm in. Put people on an island and most likely everyone will turn into a raving beast (aka Lord of the Flies). >The omnivore could easily ingest all the energy and nutrients needed to function Are you some crazy survivalist? I would guess not. Also most of the (let's say US) population couldn't survive. Most people get their meat from fast food restaurants or else packaged in a supermarket. Scenario, you land on a desert island. You don't have a gun or a knife. You think the mass population could trap and kill a wild pig? You need training to do something like that. Even something smaller like a wild bird or some sort of rodent is not easy. Then there's the question of having to cook it. Do you think most of the population can start a fire without matches?

genofon 13y ago

humans are animals, nothing more, nothing less. I'm not against improving animal's conditions, but I have the impression that most of the activist don't have much contact with nature and they feel that we are superior, so we don't follow nature's rule. the reality is that a lot of people still struggle to survive like other animals, and it can be brutal.