• About
  • Video

Life or Lunch?

~ Save a Life and Give up Meat for Lunch.

Life or Lunch?

Category Archives: humane

“Humane” Producer Acquired by Factory Farm Giant | VegNews

16 Wednesday Sep 2015

Posted by ThomasSTL in factory farm, humane

≈ Comments Off on “Humane” Producer Acquired by Factory Farm Giant | VegNews

Tags

VegNews

Niman Ranch Pork founder Bill Niman calls “hormone free” a “marketing opportunity.”

In a move to reduce direct competitors, factory farm meat producer Perdue Farms purchased Northern California-based Niman Ranch this week, a company known for antibiotic-free pork raised “on pasture or in bedded pens.” Bill Niman founded Niman Ranch in the 1970s as an alternative to factory farming, and made a name for himself in restaurant and foodie circles as the founding father of “humanely raised” meat. Niman stepped away from the business in 2007 after a controlling stake in the business was acquired by Natural Food Holdings, an Illinois investment firm. Whereas Niman Ranch was known for its vehement opposition to treating animals with antibiotics, Niman says new ownership means that “when a cow gets sick, Niman Ranch medicates it and takes it out of the system, so it’s not sold as Niman Ranch beef. But then they implant it with hormones and sell it into the commodity beef market,” adding that “they just see hormone free as a marketing opportunity.” Several class action lawsuits have been filed against Perdue Farms for falsely advertising its products as “humanely raised.”

Source: “Humane” Producer Acquired by Factory Farm Giant

Advertisements

Burger King’s New Ad Campaign Is Royally Tasteless – MFABlog.org

26 Thursday Mar 2015

Posted by ThomasSTL in celebrity, cruelty, fast food, humane

≈ Comments Off on Burger King’s New Ad Campaign Is Royally Tasteless – MFABlog.org

Tags

MercyForAnimals

Screen-Shot-2015-03-25-at-12.18.15-PMIn its latest marketing scheme, Burger King has reached a new level of offensiveness with Gloria, a chicken who “chooses” whether or not Chicken Fries will be served at a Burger King location via food bowls that read “Yes” and “No.”

An Adweek article states that according to Burger King, “Gloria has the final word. She can’t be bought, seduced, or swayed. After the decision, fans can take celebratory or sad-face photos with her.”

Chickens are incredibly intelligent beings, capable of great joy and suffering. This publicity stunt shows Burger King’s blatant disregard for the welfare of chickens, even insinuating that Gloria sometimes “chooses” to support the torture of fellow chickens.

Chickens on today’s factory farms face horrific abuse and neglect. In fact, a recent Mercy For Animals undercover investigation at a poultry slaughter facility documented birds having their fragile wings and legs broken as they were violently shackled upside down and birds having their throats sliced open while still conscious and able to feel pain.

You can watch the investigation here:

The best thing that consumers can do to reduce the suffering of chickens on modern farms is simply to stop eating them. For delicious recipes and tips on making the transition to a plant-based diet, check out ChooseVeg.com.

Burger King’s New Ad Campaign Is Royally Tasteless – MFABlog.org.

Is ‘Humane’ Meat Possible? Can it Ever Be Enough? | One Green Planet

13 Friday Feb 2015

Posted by ThomasSTL in factory farm, humane

≈ Comments Off on Is ‘Humane’ Meat Possible? Can it Ever Be Enough? | One Green Planet

Tags

onegreenplanet

051a-500In the last several years, multiple farmed animal welfare improvements have been announced and implemented through the enactment of new laws and company initiatives. These welfare improvements have included actual or planned bans on battery cages, gestation crates, veal crates, and bodily mutilations. Each of these welfare victories have been the result of intense campaigning by many animal rights activists and organizations, sometimes over a period of many years.

There is no doubt that these improvements make a difference to animals. Battery cages, gestation crates, veal crates, and bodily mutilations are terribly cruel practices that totally rob animals of the ability to live natural and healthy lives. But is focusing on the production of meat and other animal products with higher animal welfare standards worth the time and resources that we pour into them? Is there any chance that they may actually have unintended negative consequences?

What are Animal Welfare Improvements?

Animal welfare improvements focus on bettering the conditions of animals raised and kept for human use. In the case of farmed animals, welfare improvements make the animals more comfortable during their lives, typically by enhancing living conditions. For example, nine U.S. states and Canada have banned the use of gestation crates for mother pigs, and California’s Prop 2 eliminated the use of battery cages for layer hens in California.

However, welfare improvements are limited in that they do not seek to end the practice of using animals for food altogether. So while pig welfare is certainly improved when pigs are no longer confined to tiny, metal cages that prevent them from turning around, this improvement doesn’t change the fact that the pigs will eventually be slaughtered and used for food. Similarly, while hens in California are now free of the miniscule wire cages that the agricultural industry favors, they are still used to lay eggs for people and will eventually be slaughtered.

Unintended Consequences

Many animal advocates have voiced concerns that animal welfare improvements may not be worth the time and resources that are invested into them. This argument has merit, because the conditions in which animals are kept even after new welfare improvements are implemented are typically not much better than what they were before the improvement. The industry finds ways to comply with new laws while not compromising their profits. Pigs not confined to gestation crates are often kept in group housing that are so crowded that they can scarcely move about. Chickens not confined to battery cages are often housed by the thousands in huge, dark, windowless sheds. Advocates must seriously ask themselves whether these improvements merit years of campaigning and resources.

Another concern that is often voiced regarding these improvements is the fear that they make people feel better about eating animals and animal products, driving them to eat more of these products than they otherwise might. People may hear of welfare improvements and assume that they are now consuming “happy” meat, dairy, and eggs. For example, following the passage of Prop 2 in California, one study found that consumers did not decrease their egg consumption after hearing of the horrors of egg production. Instead, they switched to cage-free eggs. Troublingly, veal consumption actually increased in Europe following the passage of a veal crate ban.

The reality is that cage-free, crate-free, organic, grass fed, and “Certified Humane” animal products all still involve immeasurable animal suffering. No matter how many welfare improvements we make, animals who are raised for food will continue to suffer various forms of cruelty throughout their lives. The chance that everyday consumers will latch on to the promise that they are purchasing “humane” animal products is very real, and animal welfare improvements may further convince them of this fallacy.

The Question Is Not Whether it Helps, But Whether It is Enough

Animal welfare improvements clearly make a difference to the animals to which they apply. Hens not confined to battery cages are better off – even if only slightly – than hens who spend their entire lives confined to one wire cage. Mother pigs who can turn around are better off than those confined to narrow gestation crates. The difference may seem small, but it is a difference nonetheless to those hens and pigs.

However, animal welfare improvements are clearly not enough, and they are by no means an end goal to aspire for. When one cruel farming practice is banned, the industry often replaces it with another slightly less appalling practice, such as overcrowded (but cage and crate-free) group housing. Perhaps more alarming, consumers may be lulled into believing that animal welfare improvements mean that the animal products they are buying are free of cruelty and misery.

While animal welfare improvements have definite benefits, animal advocates must be keenly aware of their possibly unintended effects. We must find a balance between supporting welfare campaigns that will improve the lives of animals here today, while still continuing to educate people of the cruelty inherent in all animal products. Regardless of how many “humane” and “cage free” labels appear on a product’s package, production of animals for food is inherently cruel.

Through education, we can show consumers who are concerned about animal welfare that a plant-based diet is the only diet that truly ensures farm animal welfare.

So Green Monsters, do you think “humane” meat, and other animal products are possible? Tell us in the comments.

Is ‘Humane’ Meat Possible? Can it Ever Be Enough? | One Green Planet.

← Older posts

Animal Rights

  • ASPCA
  • HSUS
  • Mercy for Animals
  • PETA

Diet

  • GoVEG
  • Meatless Monday
  • VEGAN

Follow me on Twitter

My Tweets

Recent Posts

  • Happy National Hot Dog Day – the #Vegan way! No cruelty necessary. 🌭🌭 #NationalHotDogDay
  • New Flag Launches to Unite Vegans Across the Globe
  • Canada’s New Dietary Guidelines Push for Plant Foods
  • Gisele Takes a Stance Against Fur on Cover of Vogue
  • Stephen Colbert Goes Vegan

Archives

newman

Facebook

Facebook
Advertisements

Blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy