« Well, you asked. | Main | Ellen does good »

Locally and humanely killed.

What constitutes humane treatment? - megnut.com:

I admit some bias towards the issue as I adore foie gras, but honestly, banning its production on humanitarian (animalitarian?) grounds? That's a slippery slope for legislatures to proceed down, and one that I'm not entirely opposed to. But I'd hope for some consistency, what about more regulations for humane treatment of chickens and cows? American factory farming is hardly more humane than family-farm foie gras production.

Yet another go at the "humane killing" windmill. When people use this "humane treatment" argument, is it from some sort of supposed feeling for animals, or is it because of the health risks to humans of "inhumane" treatment? (You know, fecal contamination, bacterial infections, unsanitary conditions etc etc. All that stuff. ) It can't be feeling for the animals, because you really can't get much more inhumane than killing them. If it's the health risks, well, at least you're being honest, but drop the "humane" crap. Don't try to make it sound like you're all concerned about animal treatment. See first reason above.

Flatly, if you're going to kill something[1] and eat it, then hoping that it cavorted happily in grassy sun-dappled pastures before it rode the lazy river in your colon for a few hours is really kind of besides the point.

[1] Or "cause it to be killed on your behalf" for all you "plants feel pain" sophists out there.

Technorati Tags: , ,