5 ms·

I just saw a documentary on German tv showimg mich the Same thing for Danish pig farmers so it is not an isolated example. It is a simple issue of incentives.

by nasmorn 12y ago

I just saw a documentary on German tv showimg mich the Same thing for Danish pig farmers so it is not an isolated example. It is a simple issue of incentives. Even more impressive was that zero anti biotics use in pig farming practiced by a farmer who had his pigs in stables with free range access was only 40% more expensive. Just think about it. We endanger the most important scientific advancement in human health for cheaper bacon.

rejschaap 12y ago
It is not that simple though. It is rational to not eat meat that contains antibiotics or fruit and vegetables that contain pesticides. But you need the time, money, resources, knowledge and organisation to actually pull it off. I don't know there is some sort of Maslow pyramid for countries, but a lot of countries might just not be ready to face this problem just yet. For instance, China wasn't too bothered about pollution until recently, they were (and still are) busy raising the general standard of living. Similarly, the United States might not be ready to attack this problem just yet because they are busy attacking... other things.
Cthulhu_ 12y ago
> Just think about it. We endanger the most important scientific advancement in human health for cheaper bacon. Because that's what the consumer wants. Apparently. Supermarkets have been competing with each other on prices for ages, a well-known example is chicken fillet. The price has gone down to just E3 per kilo at one point, which caused a bit of a riot because those were the famous 'plofkip' (exploding chicken), or chickens that were forced to grow as large as possible in as little time as possible. But there's the other side, too; farms like the one described in the opening post can thank their existence over an increase in demand for 'organic' meat, or meat that gets a label indicating it was grown in an animal-friendly fashion without use of antibiotics and growth hormone. Conscious consumers with a decent income will be more inclined to pay a premium for that kind of meat.
- kjjw 12y ago
  I don't think it is fair to say that the consumer wants cheaper beacon, even at the expense of human health. Is that choice made clear at the check out? No. Do most people know this is a choice? I suspect not.
  - mazuhl 12y ago
    You're right. And the two are hard to compare: cheaper bacon in your hand, immediately, today vs. the more abstract 'human health' (which may or may not affect you, ever).
- pulmo 12y ago
  It's a classic negative externality. The costs for society are higher than the private costs. Therefore a market failure.
- vanderZwan 12y ago
  > Because that's what the consumer wants. Apparently. People do not make Perfect Decisions based on Perfect Information, and this is a fine example of the wrong conclusions drawn from implicitly assuming they do.
- Loughla 12y ago
  'Organic' does not mean animal-friendly. It generally means without the use of synthetic chemicals (or without the use of any chemicals, depending on what farm you're at). Either way, sorry for being overly pedantic, but too often when people see organic the automatically assume the animals are being treated better/more ethically than they would be at a regular, non-organic farm.
  - justincormack 12y ago
    That not true in Europe at least, where organic certification includes animal welfare standards eg the UK see http://www.soilassociation.org/animalwelfare http://www.soilassociation.org/animalwelfare
    - Loughla 12y ago
      That's what I get for applying the US lens to Europe. . . . But, the regulations are very similar. So, where your site states, "Lots of outdoor space and fresh air" "Encouragement of normal animal behaviour" I wonder if that is translated the same as the United States: "Provide access to the outdoors so that animals can exercise their natural behaviors" "Support animal health and welfare" If it is, I really wonder if they're being applied the same, or if yours are as open for interpretation as ours. My experience with US organic farming is dairy and chicken. I work with farmers quite a bit through the extension office of my college employer. The organic farmers in my area practice (in my opinion) very loose organic practices. For example, access to outdoors was available, but in an enclosed area (run for chickens, small pasture for cattle). This, by no means allowed the animals to "exercise their natural behaviors," and yet was within the legal definition of organic, and allowed them to sell their products to grocery stores and markets as 'certified organic'. The health and welfare laws mentioned in the second portion apply to all farmers, regardless of organic certification or not. Is the interpretation similar in Europe?
      - justincormack 12y ago
        That's a very good question. I don't know what the worst case is here, only a few cases which are very good... Will try to find out.
TheCondor 12y ago
And, when you get down to brass tacks, I would not be at all surprised if it was better tasting bacon too... How are the Europeans able to do this? Is there an opposition view? Surely some farmers couldn't change and went out of business or something, right? It just seems too pragmatic and agreeable, it's almost like it makes sense. Surely near term profits are an issue there as well. In the US, agriculture is huge money, just beef alone is a $200b+ industry. Then there are all these backwards incentives in the farm bills. Then there is the issue of rehabilitating a farm to take it "organic" (I'm conflating things here, antibiotics and organic farming aren't completely the same but similar) it takes years and capital to go clean, not all farmers have the resources to do it; they and the communities around them have a vested interest in declaring their methods safe and it becomes hyper political...

by nasmorn 12y ago

rejschaap 12y ago

It is not that simple though. It is rational to not eat meat that contains antibiotics or fruit and vegetables that contain pesticides. But you need the time, money, resources, knowledge and organisation to actually pull it off. I don't know there is some sort of Maslow pyramid for countries, but a lot of countries might just not be ready to face this problem just yet. For instance, China wasn't too bothered about pollution until recently, they were (and still are) busy raising the general standard of living. Similarly, the United States might not be ready to attack this problem just yet because they are busy attacking... other things.

Cthulhu_ 12y ago

> Just think about it. We endanger the most important scientific advancement in human health for cheaper bacon. Because that's what the consumer wants. Apparently. Supermarkets have been competing with each other on prices for ages, a well-known example is chicken fillet. The price has gone down to just E3 per kilo at one point, which caused a bit of a riot because those were the famous 'plofkip' (exploding chicken), or chickens that were forced to grow as large as possible in as little time as possible. But there's the other side, too; farms like the one described in the opening post can thank their existence over an increase in demand for 'organic' meat, or meat that gets a label indicating it was grown in an animal-friendly fashion without use of antibiotics and growth hormone. Conscious consumers with a decent income will be more inclined to pay a premium for that kind of meat.

kjjw 12y ago
I don't think it is fair to say that the consumer wants cheaper beacon, even at the expense of human health. Is that choice made clear at the check out? No. Do most people know this is a choice? I suspect not.
- mazuhl 12y ago
  You're right. And the two are hard to compare: cheaper bacon in your hand, immediately, today vs. the more abstract 'human health' (which may or may not affect you, ever).
pulmo 12y ago
It's a classic negative externality. The costs for society are higher than the private costs. Therefore a market failure.
vanderZwan 12y ago
> Because that's what the consumer wants. Apparently. People do not make Perfect Decisions based on Perfect Information, and this is a fine example of the wrong conclusions drawn from implicitly assuming they do.
Loughla 12y ago
'Organic' does not mean animal-friendly. It generally means without the use of synthetic chemicals (or without the use of any chemicals, depending on what farm you're at). Either way, sorry for being overly pedantic, but too often when people see organic the automatically assume the animals are being treated better/more ethically than they would be at a regular, non-organic farm.
- justincormack 12y ago
  That not true in Europe at least, where organic certification includes animal welfare standards eg the UK see http://www.soilassociation.org/animalwelfare http://www.soilassociation.org/animalwelfare
  - Loughla 12y ago
    That's what I get for applying the US lens to Europe. . . . But, the regulations are very similar. So, where your site states, "Lots of outdoor space and fresh air" "Encouragement of normal animal behaviour" I wonder if that is translated the same as the United States: "Provide access to the outdoors so that animals can exercise their natural behaviors" "Support animal health and welfare" If it is, I really wonder if they're being applied the same, or if yours are as open for interpretation as ours. My experience with US organic farming is dairy and chicken. I work with farmers quite a bit through the extension office of my college employer. The organic farmers in my area practice (in my opinion) very loose organic practices. For example, access to outdoors was available, but in an enclosed area (run for chickens, small pasture for cattle). This, by no means allowed the animals to "exercise their natural behaviors," and yet was within the legal definition of organic, and allowed them to sell their products to grocery stores and markets as 'certified organic'. The health and welfare laws mentioned in the second portion apply to all farmers, regardless of organic certification or not. Is the interpretation similar in Europe?
    - justincormack 12y ago
      That's a very good question. I don't know what the worst case is here, only a few cases which are very good... Will try to find out.

TheCondor 12y ago

And, when you get down to brass tacks, I would not be at all surprised if it was better tasting bacon too... How are the Europeans able to do this? Is there an opposition view? Surely some farmers couldn't change and went out of business or something, right? It just seems too pragmatic and agreeable, it's almost like it makes sense. Surely near term profits are an issue there as well. In the US, agriculture is huge money, just beef alone is a $200b+ industry. Then there are all these backwards incentives in the farm bills. Then there is the issue of rehabilitating a farm to take it "organic" (I'm conflating things here, antibiotics and organic farming aren't completely the same but similar) it takes years and capital to go clean, not all farmers have the resources to do it; they and the communities around them have a vested interest in declaring their methods safe and it becomes hyper political...