FoodBanter.com - View Single Post - Vegan/ARA Fallacy: Objecting to the 1001st Death

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:52:18 GMT, wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:16:26 +0000, Reynard > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:10:29 GMT, wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:42:27 +0000, Reynard > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
>>>>>and death that results from their own food production.
>>>>
>>>>Ipse dixit and false.
>>>
>>> Grass raised animal products contribute to less wildlife
>>> deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock
>>> than soy or rice products. ·
>>
>>No, it doesn't. Grass fed beef accumulates collateral
>>deaths like any other beef.
>
> Thanks for proving him right. You not only have tried to
>trivialize the death that results from your own food production,
>buy you obviously want to ignore it completely and talk about
>something else.

You'll find that all of the below concerns collateral deaths
and doesn't trivialise them at all, Harrison.

>>[The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program
>>is administered by the U.S. Department of
>>Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health
>>Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's
>>biggest and most controversial activities is killing
>>coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect
>>western livestock.
>>
>>Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government
>>exterminates tens of thousands of predator and
>>"nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list
>>of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
>>Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502
>>coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats,
>>and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000
>>beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black
>>bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were
>>killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also
>>inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used
>>include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning
>>animals in their dens.]
>>http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html
>>
>>Also, though a customer might switch to grass
>>fed beef on the understanding that he would be
>>reducing the collateral deaths associated with
>>his food, evidence from U.S.D.A shows that
>>" an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days
>>and still qualify under these guidelines" as grass
>>fed beef. That being so, grass fed beef accrues
>>collateral death from the feed grown to feed
>>them, just like any other steer in the feedlot.
>>
>>[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
>>most commented upon topic in this docket. We
>>will not belabor all the points of concern which
>>are addressed but will focus on the areas of
>>concern to our cooperative of growers. While
>>Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
>>IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
>>NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
>>you need to define both as what they ARE since
>>that is what is motivating the consumer.
>>
>>While the intent of this language would suggest
>>that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
>>especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
>>not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
>>80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
>>the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
>>animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
>>70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
>>fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
>>these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
>>consumer expectations as is borne out in the
>>website comments.]
>>http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf
>>
>>Also, farmers lie to their customers who ask after
>>their product. Farmer tell them it's grass fed but
>>finishes his animals in feedlots on grains far away.
>>
>>[Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe
>>animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed,
>>including corn, and finished on rations of grass in
>>feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still
>>surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals
>>that roam where they please or to animals kept in
>>barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards.
>>No one regulates the use of these terms, and given
>>how many years it took to achieve a national
>>definition of "organic," it may be a long time before
>>anyone does.]
>>http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm
>>
>>You can keep your grass fed beef, because you
>>cannot show that it accrues less collateral deaths
>>than the veg one might buy in a supermarket.