On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:45:50 -0500, "sgdunn" > wrote:

>
> 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.

I thought the UK has or is phasing out all battery farming, and several other
European countries are as well.

>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.

None of the broiler houses I've been in or heard about keep the birds
on wire, nor are their parents kept that way.

>That's better than most layers live, but it's still a far
>cry from a decent life.

The broilers and their parents that I've seen have had decent lives.

>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.

Veg*ns suggest we make a change. I suggest we make a different change.

>> 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.

It has nothing to do with moral obligation afaik.

>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.

You want them to have no lives, not better lives.

>> 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.

LOL!!! Uh...I mean: Oh, and how are they doing that?