> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:14:48 +0000 (UTC), "Ray" >
wrote:
>
> > This months RSPCA Newsletter contains some info on battery eggs used in
> >supermarket products.
> > Perhaps e-mailing your supermarket may provoke some response.
> >
> >Legally there is no problem, but do fancy eating veggie products
containing
> >battery eggs?
> >
> >
> >1/ Battery eggs
> >2/ Hunting ban
> >3/ Primate research
> >
> >1/ BATTERY EGGS IN VEGGIE PRODUCTS
> >A new RSPCA survey has revealed that 80 per cent of supermarkets,
including
> >Asda, Sainsbury's and Tesco, use battery eggs in their own-brand products
> >labelled 'suitable for vegetarians'.
> >
> >The RSPCA believes this could come as a shock to the estimated four
million
> >vegetarians living in the UK - many will have chosen a vegetarian diet
> >because they do not want to eat foods derived from cruel farming methods.
> [...]
>
I'm glad to see the RSPCA's taking a stand against use of battery eggs
in "vegetarian" food. Although it's not fraudulent, it's a breach of trust
between the customer and the supplier.
> Yeah, there ya go... If you veg*ns bought stuff like cage free eggs,
then
> you would be promoting that method. (I know there's a difference between
cage
> free and free range, and I believe both provide decent lives for the vast
majority
> of the birds.)
So-called "free range" and "cage free" eggs are from birds raised the
same way broiler chickens are. They're not confined to cages so small the
birds can't move side to side, but they're still living on wire mesh nets in
close quarters. That's better than most layers live, but it's still a far
cry from a decent life.
It seems that at least half the stuff like vegetarian chicken and other
> things besides tofu have egg whites in them, and of course those are from
> battery hens here in the US. I noticed it a couple of years ago, and have
been
> thinking ever since that it's too bad there isn't a significantly large
group of
> people who would like to provide decent lives for animals with their
diets. But
> there don't appear to be. In fact, from what I've seen in these news
groups
> there not only aren't people who want to do that, but everyone (to quote
the
> Gonad) on both sides is OPPOSED to seeing anyone want to do that...or at
> least opposed to suggesting people consider that alternative when
contemplating
> what they could do to achieve a more ethical lifestyle.
Vegans aren't as fatalistic as you are.
> And to make it even stranger, the people who pretend to be the most
ethically
> solid with their choice of diets (that means the veg*ns for the most
part), and who
> certainly appear to be most convinced that theirs' is the most ethically
solid (again
> that be the veg*ns for the most part), and who most pretend to be
interested in
> animals (...veg*ns...), are the same people who want to see future farm
animals
> prevented
That's right. For the same reason humans have no obligation to
reproduce, there's no moral obligation to inseminate chickens, turkeys,
cows, and pigs. The living have rights, but those humans and farm animals
who have not yet been conceived have no rights.
and NOT provided with better lives.
We do want them provided with better lives. That's why we're not
subsidizing the current abuse.
> So the people who pretend to want them to have better lives realy want
"them"
> to have none,
The ends don't justify the means.
and both they and the people who do want them to have lives are
> opposed to other people trying to promote decent lives for them with their
diet.
> Both sides are on common ground there. So maybe someone from one or both
> sides can explain why you agree that it would be a bad thing if more (if
any!) people
> began trying to contribute to decent lives for food animals with their
diet?
That's what vegans are already doing.