Reddit reviews The Ethics of What We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter

>Female dairy calves may be reared as replacements for the “culled” cows who get sent to slaughter. Although the natural lifespan of a cow is around 20 years, dairy cows are usually killed at between five and seven years of age, because they cannot sustain the unnaturally high rate of milk production. Male calves who survive are sent to auction at an age when they can barely walk. Temple Grandin has strong views about that, too: “Worst thing you can do is put a bawling baby on a trailer. It’s just an awful thing to do.” The usual options for these male dairy calves are, as already mentioned, to be slaughtered immediately or to be raised for “milk-fed” veal. From the calf’s point of view, immediate slaughter is the better fate, for it spares him 16 weeks of confinement in semi-darkness, in a bare wooden crate too narrow to turn around. He will be tied at the neck, further restricting his movements. Already stressed by separation from his mother and unable to mingle with others of his kind, he will be fed only “milk replacer,” a liquid mixture of dried milk products, starch, fats, sugar, antibiotics, and other additives. This diet is deliberately so low in iron that he will develop subclinical anemia. That’s what the veal producer wants, because it means that the calf’s flesh, instead of becoming the normal healthy red color of a 16-week-old calf on pasture, will retain the pale pink color and soft texture of “prime veal.” Bought mostly by expensive restaurants catering to gourmet tastes, that kind of veal fetches the highest price. For the same reason, the calf will be denied hay or straw for bedding—if he had it, his desire for roughage and something to chew on would cause him to eat it, and since it contains iron, that too would change the color of his flesh. The wooden stalls and neck tether are part of the same plan. If the stall had iron fittings, he would lick them, and if he were able to turn around, he would lick his own urine—again, in order to satisfy his craving for iron.

The Ethics of What We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter

Peter Singer. He's a great modern philosopher. Writes on a lot of practical issues and his arguments are just brilliant but his focus is animal rights. Try this one.

Interestingly enough, I just read some of this story that was included in another book, The Ethics of What We Eat which I'm not enjoying as much as I did the Omnivore's Dilemma.

The part I read was about the treatment of dairy cows & their calves, and though I have to commend the farm owners for allowing access to their farm, I was still slightly disturbed that they probably represent the best types of dairy cow people.

However, I realize this discussion isn't about the treatment of the animals, so: does the book go into detail on the corn-feeding and its impacts?

Just because it's done that way doesn't make it the most efficient.

"Rice is grown in California, under irrigation, but it takes a lot of energy to grow it there - about 15 to 25 times as much energy as it takes to grow rice by low-energy input methods in Bangladesh. The energy used in shipping a ton of rice from Bangladesh to San Francisco is less than the difference between the amount of energy it takes to grow it in California and in Bangladesh, so you would save energy by buying rice that has traveled thousands of miles by sea, rather than locally grown rice." - The Ethics of What We Eat by Peter Singer and Jim Mason

I can't find a direct pdf of that section to show you, but I pulled the quote directly from the hard copy in my hand.

These are recommendations from my friends:

The Ethics of What We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter

Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition

Cowspiracy which is a documentary available on Netflix.

I haven't read or watched any of these but my friends are smart people and this is what they recommend. I'm also going to read these and watch Cowspiracy so I'm more current with my information. Also this website (click on Food Justice: Know The Issues): http://www.foodispower.org/

Hmm, that's interesting. It's still worth thinking about what this non-organic feed might be and whether it's actually good for the chickens. I recently read a book on how to raise chickens (not because I want to raise them but because I wanted to see what actual chicken farmers reveal about how chickens are raised) and the crap that can go into chicken feed is disturbing (e.g., dog food w/ animal protein, used in order to regulate the chickens' molting). Also, if the producer is truly concerned about the chickens welfare, why have a double standard wherein one group gets a better diet than the others?

>Apparently this company does "humanely slaughter" these hens, but first they try to find homes for them. The ones that are slaughtered are shipped overseas to provide food for people in poorer countries.

Well, that's pretty interesting and probably well above average for the industry. How much detail do they provide about slaughter? I think for someone who really wants to do the right thing, it's problematic to take producers' words as truth. After all, they are trying to sell you a product, and they are capitalizing on a niche market and you are paying a premium based on their marketing. Not to say that they are necessarily misleading, but there definitely is great potential for that. See this for example.


My point is that the producers' incentives are not to treat animals the way they deserve - i.e., free of speciesism and giving proper consideration of their interests. Rather, they are seeking to make profit and thus concern about the animals only needs to go so far - i.e., as far as the consumer requires to address their conscience. This is something I really have thought a great deal about in considering how far ethical reasoning suggests I should go in terms of changing what I eat. The Ethics of What We Eat presents a very clear articulation of what it really means to treat animals fairly.

Everyone changes their diet for different reasons, but for me, after reading up on the health/environmental/ethical benefits if veg*nism it was hard to justify continuing to eat meat. If I had to choose, I'd say the unsustainability of modern agribusiness was the main reason behind it. If you want to learn more, The Ethics of What We Eat is a pretty comprehensive overview of how animal products are produced, and it's not as judgmental or sensationalist as other books on the topic.

I haven't seen listed yet:

• The Ethics of What We Eat
  
• The Man Who Loved Only Numbers
  
• Metamagical Themas
  
  also upvote:
  
  
• Gödel, Escher, Bach
  
• Freakonomics
  

Singer's The Ethics of What We Eat: Why our Food Choices Matter covers the fishing industry along with the rest of the meat industry (and dairy and eggs). It was very eye opening.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethics-What-We-Eat/dp/1594866872

Wow.

OK, so I'm not used to such reasonable and cogent responses on reddit. Especially since I was being all ass-holey. You'll just have to give me a moment or two.

...

OK, yes I read what you posted. To be honest, it struck me as being a bit defensive (not by you, but by those who have a chip on their shoulder concerning foie gras). I'll be even more honest... I don't like pate, so even if there was a "humane/free-range" variety of foie gras (and in fact, there is ), I still wouldn't eat it. I just listed it because, along with sow-stalls and battery farms, it's considered a poster-child example of the "evils" of modern industrial farming.

I'm an omnivore. I eat meat. I actually often consider going vegetarian for both health reasons (our guts do not handle the huge amount of meat with which we stuff ourselves) and for ethical reasons (I don't really like the idea of killing other creatures). But then I smell the wonderful aroma of a lamb roast, or friend bacon and my resolve crumbles. Therefore, when I do decide to eat meat, I make a personal decision to only eat meat and meat products that I know come from producers that minimize (or at least reduce) the suffering of the animals concerned. I'm sorry, but in all that I have read and heard, foie gras is a product that is produced cruelly. I will concede there is an interesting article here on this argument.

These are the same reasons I don't eat veal (animals forced fed milk; their locomotion reduced; quite often the flesh is dyed etc). It just doesn't appeal to me.

When I eat chicken, I choose free-range. The same for eggs and, most definitely, the same for pork. It's a personal decision and it's not something I crusade about or indeed try to convince other of. As such, I think I'm perfectly entitled to hold such views.

I read The Ethics Of What We Eat and I would recommend it as a reasoned and reasonable approach to this problem. I have heard good things about The Omnivores Dilemma, but haven't gotten around to it yet.

Thank you for restoring my faith in reddit a bit.