- cross-posted to:
- usa
- cross-posted to:
- usa
Last year, I wrote a great deal about the rise of “ventilation shutdown plus” (VSD+), a method being used to mass kill poultry birds on factory farms by sealing off the airflow inside barns and pumping in extreme heat using industrial-scale heaters, so that the animals die of heatstroke over the course of hours. It is one of the worst forms of cruelty being inflicted on animals in the US food system — the equivalent of roasting animals to death — and it’s been used to kill tens of millions of poultry birds during the current avian flu outbreak.
As of this summer, the most recent period for which data is available, more than 49 million birds, or over 80 percent of the depopulated total, were killed in culls that used VSD+ either alone or in combination with other methods, according to an analysis of USDA data by Gwendolen Reyes-Illg, a veterinary adviser to the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), an animal advocacy nonprofit. These mass killings, or “depopulations,” in the industry’s jargon, are paid for with public dollars through a USDA program that compensates livestock farmers for their losses.
They’re not mutually exclusive. There’s plenty of ways to buy ethically sourced meat. Local butchers often buy pigs, chickens, and cows to butcher and cut for consumers near me. The cows typically have a central barn where they have clean bedding and recycling water troughs, get fed every morning (maybe night), and are allowed to freely roam in a pasture whenever they please.
I eat about the size of my palm of meat every day, so over the corse of a year i probably eat 5-6 chickens, a sixth of a pig, and an eight of a cow. At those numbers, it’s totally possible to make ethically sourced meat work as a business.
A substantial percentage of people have access to food systems that allow them to thrive on plants alone, freeing them from a dependence on animal products. For these individuals, is ‘ethically sourced meat’ even possible? That is to say: if we know that killing a living being is unnecessary, is it ethical to do it anyway?
It’s an interesting question that probably has an individualized answer depending on who you ask. In my opinion, we have afforded their species comforts that no other species has. So a humane death and respectful use of their body is ethical in my eyes. Most wild animals die from infection or starvation and we’ve protected our domesticated animals from that horrible drawn out death on ethical farms.
I’d argue the most ethical course of action is to halt the breeding of additional animals for the purpose of slaughter. We have complete control of the situation here: not all wild animals die gruesome deaths, but a livestock animal’s fate is decided far before they are even born. It feels a little less than ‘humane’.
The “ethical” food typically cost more – what if they can’t afford it? Would you give them financial aid, or does your preaching stop at words?
In case you missed it, I made a point of scoping this ethical question to people who do have the means to make choices with their consumption. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask people to make ethical choices provided that they are able.
I wouldn’t tell someone not to shoot an oncoming attacker because murder is unethical. In the same vein if someone has no choice in what they can eat, it would be ridiculous to tell them to try to ‘make ethical choices’.
Rice veggies and beans is among the cheapest of foods.
The only ethically sourced meat is meat that’s hunted to prevent overpopulation. There is no ethical way to make two animals breed with the intent to cut their offspring’s life short so that you can eat it.