How would you like a cup of breastmilk with your meal?

This was on CNN. It would NEVER fly in the US. In some countries, you can get a side of either human, cow, or goat milk. They better state that crap on menus b/c I would not like a cup of mom milk in or with my food, thank you. I guess I need to start asking people when they invite me over what kind of milk they used ;)

Quote:
WATERBURY, Vt. -- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sent a letter to Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, cofounders of Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc., urging them to replace cow's milk they use in their ice cream products with human breast milk, according to a statement recently released by a PETA spokeswoman.
"PETA's request comes in the wake of news reports that a Swiss restaurant owner will begin purchasing breast milk from nursing mothers and substituting breast milk for 75 percent of the cow's milk in the food he serves," the statement says.
PETA officials say a move to human breast milk would lessen the suffering of dairy cows and their babies on factory farms and benefit human health.
"The fact that human adults consume huge quantities of dairy products made from milk that was meant for a baby cow just doesn't make sense," says PETA Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman. "Everyone knows that 'the breast is best,' so Ben & Jerry's could do consumers and cows a big favor by making the switch to breast milk."
"We applaud PETA's novel approach to bringing attention to an issue, but we believe a mother's milk is best used for her child," said a spokesperson for Ben and Jerry's.
Read PETA's letter to Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield
September 23, 2008
Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, Cofounders
Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc.
Dear Mr. Cohen and Mr. Greenfield,
On behalf of PETA and our more than 2 million members and supporters, I'd like to bring your attention to an innovative new idea from Switzerland that would bring a unique twist to Ben and Jerry's.
Storchen restaurant is set to unveil a menu that includes soups, stews, and sauces made with at least 75 percent breast milk procured from human donors who are paid in exchange for their milk. If Ben and Jerry's replaced the cow's milk in its ice cream with breast milk, your customers-and cows-would reap the benefits.
Using cow's milk for your ice cream is a hazard to your customer's health. Dairy products have been linked to juvenile diabetes, allergies, constipation, obesity, and prostate and ovarian cancer. The late Dr. Benjamin Spock, America's leading authority on child care, spoke out against feeding cow's milk to children, saying it may play a role in anemia, allergies, and juvenile diabetes and in the long term, will set kids up for obesity and heart disease-America's number one cause of death.
Animals will also benefit from the switch to breast milk. Like all mammals, cows only produce milk during and after pregnancy, so to be able to constantly milk them, cows are forcefully impregnated every nine months. After several years of living in filthy conditions and being forced to produce 10 times more milk than they would naturally, their exhausted bodies are turned into hamburgers or ground up for soup.
And of course, the veal industry could not survive without the dairy industry. Because male calves can't produce milk, dairy farmers take them from their mothers immediately after birth and sell them to veal farms, where they endure 14 to17 weeks of torment chained inside a crate so small that they can't even turn around.
The breast is best! Won't you give cows and their babies a break and our health a boost by switching from cow's milk to breast milk in Ben and Jerry's ice cream? Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Tracy Reiman
Executive Vice President
Respond to this topic here on forum.oes.org  
Obviously a publicity stunt for PETA. No chance of it happening.
8O 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O
hmmm, what name for mother's milk ice cream................... :lmt:
All natural flavor? or Just like you remember"
ROFL!!!

Just like Mom used to make!
It's funny in some ways because we drink animal milk all the time. Why the gross out factor from human milk when we all drink it as children? Must be our culture or something. Not that I want to drink it either though.... 8O
Reminds me of something that happened to one of my nurse friends - she works at a big Children's hospital in St Paul.

They had a little one as a patient for a while, and as a thank you the mom made brownies for the staff. They were wonderful, so they asked the mom what her secret recipe was.....
You guessed it - breast milk!!!! 8O

She never buys sweets from bake sales anymore - only store bought or makes them herself! :lol:
Quote:
Why the gross out factor from human milk when we all drink it as children?


For the same reasons why we generally stop in the U.S. after 6-24 months. People freak out here when we hear about moms bf'ing their 8 yo child which btw, I have a video of from some educational, pbs special in europe, and it is downright disgusting as this girl who is the length of their couch sucks on her mom's boob because mommy feels her "child" should be the deciding factor to when she is through bonding with mom. I babysat a girl who was 8, and she was dating boys. Maybe she should invite her bf over for a little milky snack. ;) :lol:

breast milk does not taste like milk.
cow milk did not come from sally next door which is refreshing to know since sally is sick and disgusting. Since sally is sick and disgusting, I imagine folks don't want to visualize her while eating my milk and cookies. There are no emotions for most to the cow on the form bred to make ~10000 liters of milk each year. That is over 2600 gallons. :lol:

Moms work like hell just to throw out 4-6 oz. in one sitting for one baby, so to produce the amount needed for it to be a job, her breasts would have so much wear ...she's bound to have issues. Although I guess we can take all our good milk making mommies and put them on a farm just so I can have 'just like Mom used to make' ice cream. ;)
Joahaeyo wrote:
Moms work like hell just to throw out 4-6 oz. in one sitting for one baby, so to produce the amount needed for it to be a job, her breasts would have so much wear ...she's bound to have issues.
I think that's PeTA's point.
and what is PETA's overall agenda? animals serve no purpose anywhere - they run free without any human intervention. and we get yucky ice cream.
crustybirds wrote:
It's funny in some ways because we drink animal milk all the time. Why the gross out factor from human milk when we all drink it as children? Must be our culture or something. Not that I want to drink it either though.... 8O


I didn't.
ButtersStotch wrote:
crustybirds wrote:
It's funny in some ways because we drink animal milk all the time. Why the gross out factor from human milk when we all drink it as children? Must be our culture or something. Not that I want to drink it either though.... 8O


I didn't.


Me either. I don't even drink animal milk. Not Cow, Not Goat, nothing. YUCK.
ButtersStotch wrote:
I didn't.
OK, I'll bite.

Because mom didn't trust you up close?
Ron wrote:
ButtersStotch wrote:
I didn't.
OK, I'll bite.

Because mom didn't trust you up close?


No, she had health issues that they weren't sure would be a good idea to mix with breast feeding. She's better now, though.

Quote:
Me either. I don't even drink animal milk. Not Cow, Not Goat, nothing. YUCK.


Ditto on that, too. I don't drink any kind of milk either. If it's hidden in something, that's fine but I'll never chug a glass of it.
Joahaeyo wrote:
For the same reasons why we generally stop in the U.S. after 6-24 months. People freak out here when we hear about moms bf'ing their 8 yo child which btw, I have a video of from some educational, pbs special in europe, and it is downright disgusting as this girl who is the length of their couch sucks on her mom's boob because mommy feels her "child" should be the deciding factor to when she is through bonding with mom.


Ha ha ha. I saw that video! The mom lets the child decide when they want to stop. She had an older sister who stopped when she was like 4 or 5, but this younger girl is keeping on... She said it tastes better than melons... :lol:
I think PETA forgets that the only reason those cows exist is because of the demand for their milk. If we didn't want cow's milk ice cream, we wouldn't have but a small fraction of the cow population we do.
I think (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong) that PeTA believes that no life at all is better than a life of what they believe is suffering.

Of course I think they also believe that any kind of human ownership of animals is a form of abuse.
Ron wrote:
I think (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong) that PeTA believes that no life at all is better than a life of what they believe is suffering.

Of course I think they also believe that any kind of human ownership of animals is a form of abuse.


that's my understanding.
Darth Snuggle wrote:
I think PETA forgets that the only reason those cows exist is because of the demand for their milk. If we didn't want cow's milk ice cream, we wouldn't have but a small fraction of the cow population we do.


actually in the ideal world for PETA the cows would continue to exist in a herd with indescrimninate breeding and the farmer would continue to feed them so we end up with exponentially more less healthy cows cause none would be culled and all would breed.
PETA's view is a bit skewed on the life of dairy cows. If a cow is giving milk, it's cared for, fed well, and not in line for the slaughter house. I know a lot of people that would sign up for that gig. :wink:
They had an article on that in OZ, I'll stick to Moo Moo Milk and the doggies LOVE goats milk :P

These greenies are out of controll!!!! According to them, Get rid of the cows they are causing the Ozone layer to diminish with there methane wind (farts) 8O :roll: :lol: :lol:
Geez what will they think of next !! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Off to grill a big slab of beef for dinner :P
lisaoes wrote:
They had an article on that in OZ, I'll stick to Moo Moo Milk and the doggies LOVE goats milk :P

These greenies are out of controll!!!! According to them, Get rid of the cows they are causing the Ozone layer to diminish with there methane wind (farts) 8O :roll: :lol: :lol:
Geez what will they think of next !! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Off to grill a big slab of beef for dinner :P


Actually methane is a greenhouse gas which is a major contributor to global warming. Cows have different digestive systems which cause them to emit methane from their mouths (and yes farts too) when they eat. The big problem though is that agricultural entities in the US aren't regulated as much as they should be so they don't have to treat the piles of manure that are coming from these cows which has very high methane emissions (not to mention odor and other environmental issues).

It's really not something to take lightly, these cows eat a ton and leave behind a lot of waste which has pretty dire consequences for our environement (not to mention the deforestation which has to take place to make room for all these animals!)
Lil Walty wrote:
lisaoes wrote:
They had an article on that in OZ, I'll stick to Moo Moo Milk and the doggies LOVE goats milk :P

These greenies are out of controll!!!! According to them, Get rid of the cows they are causing the Ozone layer to diminish with there methane wind (farts) 8O :roll: :lol: :lol:
Geez what will they think of next !! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Off to grill a big slab of beef for dinner :P


Actually methane is a greenhouse gas which is a major contributor to global warming. Cows have different digestive systems which cause them to emit methane from their mouths (and yes farts too) when they eat. The big problem though is that agricultural entities in the US aren't regulated as much as they should be so they don't have to treat the piles of manure that are coming from these cows which has very high methane emissions (not to mention odor and other environmental issues).

It's really not something to take lightly, these cows eat a ton and leave behind a lot of waste which has pretty dire consequences for our environement (not to mention the deforestation which has to take place to make room for all these animals!)


what deforestation? the US is only losing forests to houses not cows. there are fewer dairy farms with fewer cows than there used to be. the deforestation of the US really occurred when the settlers came and cut down all the old growth forests to ship back to the home land (sorry to our UK friends). 40 ' and greater white pines were basically clear cut for ship building as well.

Many cows today never leave a barn so there are fewer pastures in use as well. yes all meat products use more inputs than plant products - but come on with the decrease in milk consumption ofe rthe 70's I bet there is less cow manure than there was then now.

"Methane is one of the well-recognised greenhouse gases (GHG)
that accumulates in the atmosphere due to human activity.
Rodhe (1990) estimated that on a mass basis, the contribution of
methane to the GHG effect is 30 times that of CO2. Atmospheric
concentrations of methane have increased by 90% since 1600,
with a rapid rise starting in the early 20th century (Pearman et al.
1986). In past decades, the annual increase in atmospheric
methane concentrations ranged from 0.8 to 1.0% (Blake and
Rowland 1988; Khalil et al. 1993; Lelieveld and Crutzen 1992)."

already in the 80's the gas was decreasing. Yes we probably need to do more - turning methane into gas for cars is one option that is currently being explored.
Anyone who thinks that global warming caused by human activities is "settled science" either isn't a scientist, or hasn't studied the issue or is ignoring the facts.

Right now the earth is cooling; the earth hasn't warmed at all since 1998 (although that was an exceptionally warm year) and NOT ONE of the dire predictions predicted this might happen.

I am not convinced either way; I'm very willing to attribute global warming to human activity... if it is a factor.

I remember dire predictions of the new Ice Age from 30 years ago. Temps were much warmer than present a few hundred years ago.

I also think we should move to alternative "green" fuels, but for other environmental and economic reasons.
Ron wrote:
Anyone who thinks that global warming caused by human activities is "settled science" either isn't a scientist, or hasn't studied the issue or is ignoring the facts.

Right now the earth is cooling; the earth hasn't warmed at all since 1998 (although that was an exceptionally warm year) and NOT ONE of the dire predictions predicted this might happen.

I am not convinced either way; I'm very willing to attribute global warming to human activity... if it is a factor.

I remember dire predictions of the new Ice Age from 30 years ago. Temps were much warmer than present a few hundred years ago.

I also think we should move to alternative "green" fuels, but for other environmental and economic reasons.


That's pretty much where we stand. Mr. J is big into apologetics, and he goes on and on about why he doesn't buy it. He tries not to bring up dog topics unless he wants an earful, and I try not to bring up "global warming" or anything in the regards to evolution. :lol:
Joahaeyo wrote:
Ron wrote:
Anyone who thinks that global warming caused by human activities is "settled science" either isn't a scientist, or hasn't studied the issue or is ignoring the facts.

Right now the earth is cooling; the earth hasn't warmed at all since 1998 (although that was an exceptionally warm year) and NOT ONE of the dire predictions predicted this might happen.

I am not convinced either way; I'm very willing to attribute global warming to human activity... if it is a factor.

I remember dire predictions of the new Ice Age from 30 years ago. Temps were much warmer than present a few hundred years ago.

I also think we should move to alternative "green" fuels, but for other environmental and economic reasons.


That's pretty much where we stand. Mr. J is big into apologetics, and he goes on and on about why he doesn't buy it. He tries not to bring up dog topics unless he wants an earful, and I try not to bring up "global warming" or anything in the regards to evolution. :lol:


I know I'm going to regret this but, evolution? I'm afraid to hear that there may be an opposing side between the two of you...
We're on the same page. :lol: He just likes to be able to spit out facts when people ask why we don't or do believe in something. That's just one of those topics that gets him going. ...and I generally start fading away. He's a history buff. I'm a reality tv buff.
With all due respect, Ron, there are many climate scientists who do believe that there is global warming going on right now--and caused in part at least by human activities. I am sure that they would say that those who disbelieve in global warming aren't scientists, are ignoring facts or haven't studied the issues. As someone who is passably familiar with science (although I am not a climate scientist), I do understand that to scientists, knowledge and understanding are never 'settled' but are constantly being scrutinized and examined in order to add to the body of understanding.

For a planet that is 'cooling' there sure are a lot of glaciers melting away--on both sides of the equator, if the Argentinians I spoke with are to be believed.
Lil Walty wrote:
Actually methane is a greenhouse gas which is a major contributor to global warming. Cows have different digestive systems which cause them to emit methane from their mouths (and yes farts too) when they eat. The big problem though is that agricultural entities in the US aren't regulated as much as they should be so they don't have to treat the piles of manure that are coming from these cows which has very high methane emissions (not to mention odor and other environmental issues).

It's really not something to take lightly, these cows eat a ton and leave behind a lot of waste which has pretty dire consequences for our environement (not to mention the deforestation which has to take place to make room for all these animals!)


Actually, it's scientific "fact" that PETA and their ilk are mainly responsible for the increase in greenhouse gases due to their relentless emissions of hot air. :lol: More seriously, they just make this stuff up as they go along.

People keep repeating the above like it's gospel, never questioning how they generate their "facts", or questioning their self-stated goals (globally enforced veganism) and how this might play into some of their more outrageous claims, while in reality produce agriculture, among other things, is a far worse contributor to greenhouse gas emissions than animal agriculture, and I say this as someone who works in the produce industry. Guess the vegans can kiss their tofu goodbye. Come to think of it, we humans really have no right to expoit plant life for our benefit either. In Switzerland they've been working on extending human rights to plants. I pruned my hedge a while back. I wonder if it can sue me?

I'm sure the minute someone manages to push something similarly idiotic through in the US there will be lawyers galore lining up to take such cases. The Animal Rights movement spends a ton of money endowing law schools (and vet schools) with this, that and the other thing in exchange for the right to perpetuate their propaganda in the class room. That's when they aren't busy telling our children that mommy is a murderer for making them chicken soup. Or that she's trying to kill them when she asks them to drink their milk.

Ron is right. Hardcore Animal Rights philosophy dictates that all domesticated animals should by rights be eradicated (made extinct) and all use of animals is immoral. Basically the philosophy has less to do with any real concern for animal rights and everything to do with a very deep-seated hatred of humankind. Certainly among the hardcore leadership there is no love of animals. many of their followers probably don't grasp that notion. I do believe that many of them love animals in their own way, though they frequently have very little genuine understanding of them except in some disney-fied way. But the topbrass is very clear about their ultimate agenda if you actually pay attention to what they are saying and doing.

PETA kills most of the animals they can get their hands on. Do you really think they have the least bit of concern for dairy animals beyond making sure the rest of us can't enjoy our dairy products? :roll:

The bigger threat from PETA is that they act as the stooge for HSUS. PETA comes up with some hairbrained usually disgusting campaign, we recoil in horror, but, wait, while our attention is still at least marginally focused on the cause du jour, in comes the more main stream HSUS and takes a more conservative position with the same goal and suddenly it doesn't seem so bad. It's called moving the center towards whatever extremist view you adhere to. It's a lovely symbiotic working relationship, and a beautiful sleight of hand, except when the more visibly extreme fringes gets upset with HSUS for espousing a more mainstream idealogy, i.e. not taking a hard core stance - also known as "selling out". With the kind of cash they rake in, selling out is big business indeed, and I don't blame them. It's also more politically expedient, if you are willing to take a longer term view, which many on the fringes are not. They want Animal Liberation NOW and some will support bloodshed (preferably human) to achieve it.

Anyone see Oprah's recent show on Prop 2 that's on the upcoming California Ballot? The proposition has the power to drastically change the face of California agriculture, making it more costly, less sanitary, and, as it happens, less humane. It's put forth as in the best interest of the poor animals involved, but really all it seeks to accomplish is make agricultural production so costly and so impractical that supply takes a major hit, ultimately pricing their products out of range for many, or ideally most, normal Americans (California being only the flagship state - if they succeed, and it seems likely that they will, they'll keep going, state by state)

Pacelle cloaked the proposal to the American public under the guise of their more recent "humane meat" (and eggs and dairy) campaign, leaving the less politically savvy Animal Rights organizations screaming that there is no such thing, which of course is clearly true based on their world view that all animal agriculture is by its very existence abusive and exploitative and must be abolished.

I wonder how far and how hard they can push their agenda before the average American catches on that they're being lied to at best. :lmt: It really is a pity we're so removed from our own food supply that we will take the word of people who can't tell a cow from a camel as the final word on "humane" treatment.

Tgir - I wrote two master's theses on "green" economics and based on available science I'm still not entirely convinced we are indeed looking at global warming. Is there something going on? Evidence is suggestive. Do we know for sure what that is? Not really. Do I blame belching, farting, pooping bovines? No more so than I blame my brother.

(Oh! Ow! Please don't let him read this :lol: :sidestep: )

Kristine
Please don't think that I am in agreement with PETA about....well, anything other than the general notion that animals should be treated ethically--and my understanding of what ethical is is vastly different than theirs. But then, I'm a biologist and I've used animals as test subjects, and am a lapsed vegetarian who grew up with a father, grandfather and uncle who were avid hunters....Oh, and I have pets.

My husband is an economist (Ph.D.) and teaches environmental economics. With every due respect to green economics and environmental economics, this is not at all the same thing as a scientific study of climate changes.

My statement was that certainly there are plenty of scientists whose work centers on studying climate who do believe that there is global warming and that it is in part influenced by human activities.
tgir wrote:


My husband is an economist (Ph.D.) and teaches environmental economics. With every due respect to green economics and environmental economics, this is not at all the same thing as a scientific study of climate changes.


that must be an interesting topic. My favorite joke from grad school is about the three professors (a physicist, a biologist and an economist) were stranded on a desert island with no food when a can of some food washed ashore. How to open it? they brainstormed and the physicist (sort of like the professor on Gilligan's island) suggested some elaborate scheme using rocks and levers and pressure, the biologist talked abut heating it etc etc etc and the economist started with "let's assume we have a can opener...."

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Sorry that one always cracks me up.

So what does an environmental economist assume?
tgir wrote:
My husband is an economist (Ph.D.) and teaches environmental economics. With every due respect to green economics and environmental economics, this is not at all the same thing as a scientific study of climate changes..


:lol: :lol: :lol:

I wasn't using environmental economic theory to prove or disprove the existence of climate change or the causes thereof. It's just that when you spend an inordinant amount of time working on exploring the feasibility of developing financial instruments/markets for instance for things like trading emissions permits (for my MBA) and then looking at the broader geopolitical implications for my int'l relations degree, one does feel compelled to review the existing science as it relates to climate change to see if there is even justification for what one is working on :wink:

The science was (and remains) sometimes compelling, but ultimately inconclusive, leading one to cover one's behind with statements like "even though one cannot conclusively state that greenhouse gas emissions is about to bring about apocolypse now (or even in the forseeable future), it behooves us to consider and limit our environmental impact to the best of our ability and to use the most cost-effective tools possible to do so"

Or something along those lines :wink:

Kristine
kerry wrote:
So what does an environmental economist assume?


One probably assumes that people with PhDs in philosophy, was it, should not be throwing rocks - real or assumed - at economists, environmental or otherwise.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Kristine :wink:
I never intended to spark a debate on whether climate change is real and if so whether it is caused by human activity. I simply wanted to point out that it's not simply cow burps/farts, but its the massive piles of untreated manure that are emitting high levels of methane among other pollutants. And many people see this as a problem, including myself.

Also, this is not some insane theory that PETA thought up. This has nothing to do with PETA. I get my facts from the United States Department of Agriculture who's studies have shown that ghg emissions from agricultural entities is higher than ghg's being emitted by transportation vehicles. Which of course makes me wonder why the Supreme Court ruled that EPA can (and should) regulate CO2 emissions from transportation vehicles as pollutants but manure is left virtually unregulated.

Also, PETA/animal rights philosophy/climate change/etc. aside, does anyone on here really think it's ok to treat animals the way they are treated in slaughterhouses? If so what is your reasoning?
driving a car is a privledge so regulating how they operate MAY be easier for people to take. all of government in the US is built on an incremental systme of change - it takes time.

The slaughterhouses I have visited have not seemingly treated animals in an inhumane manner. I assume your visits have found something else?
kerry wrote:
driving a car is a privledge so regulating how they operate MAY be easier for people to take. all of government in the US is built on an incremental systme of change - it takes time.

The slaughterhouses I have visited have not seemingly treated animals in an inhumane manner. I assume your visits have found something else?



Inhumane is subjective, so I really don't know what you have observed.

Things that I have observed in video and read in government reports; keeping animals in confined spaces so they cannot stand up or turn around, debeaking chickens so they do not fight with other chickens when they are placed in pens with them, keeping chickens in constant darkness, killing chickens without knocking them out, hanging animals upside down while they are still alive, scalding chickens to de-feather them while they are alive and not desensitized in any way, constant tethering.

And those are just the legal things.
Lil Walty wrote:
I get my facts from the United States Department of Agriculture who's studies have shown that ghg emissions from agricultural entities is higher than ghg's being emitted by transportation vehicles.


Are we comparing a cow to a vehicle, or just what is an agricultural entity?

EPA numbers (2005 in this case) tell a slightly different version of this story, given that they have transportation contributing 27.7% of greenhouse gas emissions, whereas agriculture all total (animal and produce) contributes 8.2%

Further broken down, enteric fermentation is responsible for 1.5 % of greenhouse gases (that would be the aforementioned livestock belches and farts) whilst the manure management problem accounts for a whopping 0.7% of greenhouse emissions. Not that there isn't room for improvement, but it kind of makes those dangerous bovine belches and their awful manure producing habits seem a wee bit overblown, don't you think? So I guess the US Supreme Court got it right afterall, going after the real major sources of greenhouse emissions. Bully for them.

That said the methane from livestock manure should be captured and reused as energy. It's not much, but depending on the complexity and cost of available technology, it could be in the farmers' best interest to do so, especially larger scale operations.

Interesting discussion. Heading home to let my personal noxious gas producing entities out to, well, you know :wink:

Kristine
Lil Walty wrote:
kerry wrote:
driving a car is a privledge so regulating how they operate MAY be easier for people to take. all of government in the US is built on an incremental systme of change - it takes time.

The slaughterhouses I have visited have not seemingly treated animals in an inhumane manner. I assume your visits have found something else?



Inhumane is subjective, so I really don't know what you have observed.

Things that I have observed in video and read in government reports; keeping animals in confined spaces so they cannot stand up or turn around, debeaking chickens so they do not fight with other chickens when they are placed in pens with them, keeping chickens in constant darkness, killing chickens without knocking them out, hanging animals upside down while they are still alive, scalding chickens to de-feather them while they are alive and not desensitized in any way, constant tethering.

And those are just the legal things.


No matter what the laws, some will always break them. stricter laws won't stop people who already break existing laws.

I have to say chickens are some of the nastiest creatures put on the earth so I am not surprised they are mistreated more often Not that it makes it right - just an observation.

Please do not form your opinions through propaganda videos - from either side. do independent research and form your own opinions.

I have seen cows and pigs treated like cows and pigs - not like human beings but not mistreated either. saying an animal was held in a pen where it can't turn around makes me wonder - horses and cows are often teathered head on in stalls for a variety of reasons - when does it cross the line. and what has constant tethering have to do with a slaughter house? presumably animals do not spend much time in such a facility.
kerry wrote:

No matter what the laws, some will always break them. stricter laws won't stop people who already break existing laws.

I have to say chickens are some of the nastiest creatures put on the earth so I am not surprised they are mistreated more often Not that it makes it right - just an observation.

Please do not form your opinions through propaganda videos - from either side. do independent research and form your own opinions.

I have seen cows and pigs treated like cows and pigs - not like human beings but not mistreated either. saying an animal was held in a pen where it can't turn around makes me wonder - horses and cows are often teathered head on in stalls for a variety of reasons - when does it cross the line. and what has constant tethering have to do with a slaughter house? presumably animals do not spend much time in such a facility.



Will stricter laws alone stop people from breaking laws? Probably not, unless of course there is enforcement to back up those laws. Your point seems irrelevant though considering the things I listed were all legal.

As far as chickens being "nasty", I'd have to disagree. I had the pleasure of observing feral chickens before and I think they are gorgeous, intelligent, social animals. And honestly I don't think there is a being on this planet "nasty" enough to excuse the things I listed above.

And I did not anywhere say that I formed my opinions from propaganda films. I've done a decent amount of research on the subject so I'm confused by your assumption.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say in the last paragraph. Are you saying that there is a different standard of what constitutes mistreatment for different animals? I do agree with what you said about reasons for tethering these animals, but I still think constant tethering is not only inhumane but unnecessary.

Maddog- I have different numbers from a report I put together for a non-profit this past summer. I'll have to dig up my resources and link you to where I get my info from!
obviously we won't agree if I don't read all the words - sorry I am dyslexic and read legal processed illegal.

I don't think tethering for a specific purpose is inhumane - nor do I think a leash on my dog is inhumane. we can agree to disagree on that.

I didn't say that by nature of their nasty - yes they are dirty and nasty to each other and anyone who has to handle them - behavior chickens deserve their treatment I did just say I wasn't surprised due to my FIRST hand knowledge of their nature.
Mad Dog wrote:
tgir wrote:
My husband is an economist (Ph.D.) and teaches environmental economics. With every due respect to green economics and environmental economics, this is not at all the same thing as a scientific study of climate changes..


:lol: :lol: :lol:

I wasn't using environmental economic theory to prove or disprove the existence of climate change or the causes thereof. It's just that when you spend an inordinant amount of time working on exploring the feasibility of developing financial instruments/markets for instance for things like trading emissions permits (for my MBA) and then looking at the broader geopolitical implications for my int'l relations degree, one does feel compelled to review the existing science as it relates to climate change to see if there is even justification for what one is working on :wink:

The science was (and remains) sometimes compelling, but ultimately inconclusive, leading one to cover one's behind with statements like "even though one cannot conclusively state that greenhouse gas emissions is about to bring about apocolypse now (or even in the forseeable future), it behooves us to consider and limit our environmental impact to the best of our ability and to use the most cost-effective tools possible to do so"

Or something along those lines :wink:

Kristine


One of my husband's colleagues, also a PhD in economics, is an authority on health care economics. As such, she's familiar with many aspects of medical practice. However, this does not make her qualified to evaluate medical procedures on a medical basis.

Quote:
One probably assumes that people with PhDs in philosophy, was it, should not be throwing rocks - real or assumed - at economists, environmental or otherwise.


It's a PhD in economics.

An economist assumes that markes work; that people act in their own self interest. At least the ones I know do.
I am walking away from this thread - as interesting as it is-because someone has decided to edit/eliminate some of my valid comments. Obviouslly itwasn't anyone involved in the discussion.
kerry wrote:
I am walking away from this thread - as interesting as it is-because someone has decided to edit/eliminate some of my valid comments. Obviouslly itwasn't anyone involved in the discussion.


It was made by me because it seemed a bit pointed and a little rude. Only moderators and admins can edit and even if we aren't actively involved in the discussion, we read everything to make sure everything is going smoothly and nothing goes against the forum rules or mantra. If you feel it was a just point, by all means repost it but just be mindful of people's feelings since some topics can get pretty heated.

A quick reminder to all of the oes.org mantra (I know we've all heard it but it helps to toss it in every once in awhile.)

Quote:
"Write each post as if you are sitting at the kitchen table of a neighbor who you don't know very well, sharing a cup of tea."
A neighbor is someone with whom you probably should (and would like to) get along. Please treat your fellow members and guests in a polite manner. It's an old but true cliche: We do not need to be disagreeable when we disagree.
If you want anyone to change a guest's actions, your goal will not be accomplished by scaring them away from the site with nastiness. Your ONLY hope of changing their actions is to embrace them, fully understand their feelings about it, and then gently educating. Name calling might make you feel good, better or superior but will only cause people to run away and perhaps deepen their disdain for people who share your beliefs.
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
Counter

[Home] [Get A Sheepdog] [Community] [Memories]
[OES Links] [OES Photos] [Grooming] [Merchandise] [Search]

Identifying Ticks info Greenies Info Interceptor info Glucosamine Info
Rimadyl info Heartgard info ProHeart Info Frontline info
Revolution Info Dog Allergies info Heartworm info Dog Wormer info
Pet Insurance info Dog Supplements info Vitamins Info Bach's Rescue Remedy
Dog Bite info Dog Aggression info Boarding Kennel info Pet Sitting Info
Dog Smells Pet Smells Get Rid of Fleas Hip Displasia info
Diarrhea Info Diarrhea Rice Water AIHA Info
Sheepdog Grooming Grooming-Supplies Oster A5 info Slicker Brush info
Dog Listener Dog's Mind Dog Whisperer

Please contact our Webmaster with questions or comments.
  Please read our PRIVACY statement and Terms of Use

 

Copyright 2000 - 2012 by OES.org. All rights reserved.