I often stumble during arguments, not always sure of what I'm saying. And arguments about animal rights are no different. So I tend to refer people to books and articles that do a far better job of making a case.
The argument against "humane meat" is no exception. The term itself I find fairly stunning and contradictory- how can one have humane slaughter? Because inevitably, those happy little animals you see running around the "humane farm" are going to be sent to a slaughterhouse and be murdered.
Josh from Herbivore deals with this issue in his latest editor's note (thanks to vegan chai for pointing it out). At a recent conference sponsored by HSUS (Humane Society of the United States), the "Animal Welfare Institute", an organization that advocates, among other things, "humane meat" and "humane animal research", paid their money and was able to sponsor a "panel discussion" (where they hand picked their supporters for the panel).
Take a look at the article- I'm curious to know where you stand?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Honestly, I don't think I'll ever resolve the debate internally. I am an omnivore, and can't imagine being otherwise. While that gives me pause knowing where the meat comes from, I can't see giving it up completely solely on principle. Maybe that makes me weak, but there it is. Perhaps it's just that I am a product of my age, and my grandchildren won't feel the connection to the consumption of meat that I do. But for now I am here and I eat meat.
Given my unrepentance, sure I'd like for the animals I consume to be treated as well as possible prior to the slaughter. But I don't think you can pass that under the heading of "humane." Maybe it should be more along the lines of demonstrating respect for the creatures that sustain us, much as ancient societies did with all their sources of food, animal or vegetable. We who consume meat do owe gratitude and respect to the animals that die to feed us. Omnivores should at least acknowledge that a sacrifice has been made.
Post a Comment