Eating an Ethical Act?

[Godsquisher]

First of all, I'd like this thread to NOT have any debating over whether a vegetarian diet is healthier, whether meat-eaters are healthier, and so on. Please don't use this thread as a way to belittle others for their choices.

I just finished reading the book The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter by Peter Singer and Jim Mason. It's well-written and remarkably even-handed for a book of its type. But it's got me thinking—how many people actually see what they eat as an ethical choice? And I don't just mean the distinction between eating meat and not. I mean do you pay attention to what companies you're buying food from? How important is it to you that your food reach some ethical standard? If you consider ethics when you buy food, what influenced those choices?

[engly-saxo]

Well I try and buy free range eggs. Though I choose my food for health reasons primarily.

[whetstone]

well as a Christian, I believe there is some importance to the question:

1Cr 10:31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

However, I have not given much thought specifically to how I could eat something in an unglorifying manner. OP- what specifically were your findings on 'unethical' food practices?

[Zarkonan]

The ethics I would theoretically consider important in food selection have nothing to do with how the animals are treated, but in how the company treats it's employees. But that's purely theoretical - unless the information is shoved into my hands so that I can use it in making a decision at the supermarket, I am not going out researching the OSHA compliance record of food comanies.

[ModernHeretic]

Personally I consider cruelty to animals to be depsicable, which is why I'm a vegetarian. I mean, when a pig has it's ears clipped, it's teeth cut, it's tail chopped off, and is castrated, all without anestetic, and this is all BEFORE the slaughtering process, that seems a tad unethical to me.

Basically, I won't eat meat from animals that were treated in a way that I wouldn't treat them, and since it's not really possible to know how animals have been treated, I don't eat meat.

I don't know if eating is as much of an ethical choice if you're considering which brand of soybeans to buy, but when you're considering eating sentient beings I do think there are some ethical considerations. That said, I suppose you could argue environmental concerns even against producers of soybeans.

[Zarkonan]

1Cr 10:31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.


Well luckily for you, you have a bit more to go on when it comes to what is unethical or an abominiation for eating purposes... I wish I had that guidance. ;)

Leviticus 11:9-12
These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 14:9-10
These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat: whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

[Straight Hate]

I do in some respects, in others I don't. I've hunted before, so I'm well aware of the ethical position I've taken in that context. On the other hand, sometimes life's pretty busy and I don't think twice when I grab some packaged sandwich meat at the grocery store.

[Godsquisher]

OP- what specifically were your findings on 'unethical' food practices?

Again, I don't want this to spiral into a thread debating vegetarianism versus meat-eating. We've done that on this board before with painful results.

I found (not just through reading this book; I've been looking into the topic for some time) that what's ethical depends on what your definition of unethical is. Sounds obvious, but people really have to decide for themselves. I think of it like a spectrum of opinion:

1. We are the most advanced animals on the earth; therefore, we can treat other animals in any way we like. Eating them is OK, as is subjecting them to poor treatment before and during death.

2. Eating animals is an ethical choice, but we should try to avoid causing them undue pain or suffering.

3. Eating animals is an unethical choice, but I don't want to become a vegetarian/vegan myself.

4. Eating animals causes them pain/is environmentally unfriendly and is therefore unethical, and I refuse to participate.

5. Eating animals is unethical, and I refuse to eat them or any products that they make.

...And that's just for one ethical issue. There are, of course, many others beyond whether people should eat animals, such as whether to eat organic food, whether to investigate particular food companies to find out if their practices are eco-friendly, and so on.

My personal feeling is that eating animals is not unethical per se, but the way we currently produce meat on the vast majority of farms in this country is. I don't believe in causing other creatures pain for my own convenience. Therefore, I'm a vegetarian. I also buy organic produce and dairy, and I try not to consume non-organic dairy products in restaurants (e.g., I order soy milk when I get coffee drinks outside of my house).

Once again, though, I don't want this thread to turn into a fierce debate. I just wanted to know if anyone else had ethical concerns about food and what they were.

[Straight Hate]

Once again, though, I don't want this thread to turn into a fierce debate. I just wanted to know if anyone else had ethical concerns about food and what they were.

Some of the best responses come from heated exchanges... let the thread take its course.

[Josie]

I don't think you can avoid eating food that has been produced unethically. Some humans are unethical, whether they are a single person, a small business, or a large corporation. Unless you are going to raise every bite of food that goes into your mouth, you must accept that someone unethical was probably involved in its production, be it meat or vegetable. Since raising all your own food is impractical for most, and impossble for many, we should make more of an effort to decrease the acceptance of unethical behavior, and worry about food when we can treat people well consistantly.

when people start treating each other well, they will most likely start treating the animals better as well, that then negates one of the reasons for not eating meat in the first place.

[Zarkonan]

What I find interesting is people seem to think (in this thread and in real life) that how companies treat animals is somehow more important than how they treat people.

[Godsquisher]

What I find interesting is people seem to think (in this thread and in real life) that how companies treat animals is somehow more important than how they treat people.

It's not. But people have a choice of where they work. Animals in factory farms don't have a choice of how they live or die.

[Godsquisher]

I don't think you can avoid eating food that has been produced unethically.

That may be true. But if some food is produced more ethically than others, shouldn't we make an effort to try to get the most ethical food possible?

[Zarkonan]

It's not. But people have a choice of where they work. Animals in factory farms don't have a choice of how they live or die.

Many people don't have a real choice in where they work, which is why people would take that sort of job to begin with. Besides, the issue is not whether the employee's are moral/ethical, but whether how the company treats said employees is moral/ethical (sometimes even legal).

[Josie]

Do you really have the time to investigate all the companies out there that produce food? I sure as hell don't, what free time I have, I can spend on other things. IF some company is extreme, then the govermental regluators should catch it, and the news media report it, but with the level of shady dealing that is acceptable in the world today, it is inevitable that some food will be produced unethically. And while I am an animal lover, I am more concerned with how the companies treat people first, and animals second.

[show_no_mercy]

But it's got me thinking—how many people actually see what they eat as an ethical choice? And I don't just mean the distinction between eating meat and not. I mean do you pay attention to what companies you're buying food from? How important is it to you that your food reach some ethical standard? If you consider ethics when you buy food, what influenced those choices?

That's too much thought for a fucking hamburger.

[Ranger Row]

What I find interesting is people seem to think (in this thread and in real life) that how companies treat animals is somehow more important than how they treat people.

Well, most of the factory farms that treat their animals like shit, do about the same to their people. But, besides all of that, an employee that is being mistreated can leave, a chicken confined to a square foot of cage is stuck there.

A factory farm considers its animals to be little more than raw materials. That is why in a factory farm setting a chicken is given so little room; the chickens are just raw materials stacked in a warehouse. Of course these "raw materials" just happen to be living things. Most of the workers in these animal factories are just that, factory workers, not farmers. If these large animal factories were forced to pay their workers overtime and a wage comparable to other factory work the price of chicken and pork would skyrocket, and the actual small farmer who rasises chickens or pigs could make a living doing so. (this of course does not go into the other negatives of factory farming, such as the pollution run-off, which would be cured by having the small farmer producing our meat and eggs, not factories.)

Personally, I think everyone should know where their food comes from. I have rasied most of my own food before, and I have eaten factory food, but I'm now getting back into the whole homesteading thing. So most of my food is (or will be soon) growing within 500 feet of where I am typing this.

I don't have a problem with people doing things differently that me, of course I realize most people don't care to raise their own food. I don't even have problems with people eating factory farmed veal, if they realize that the calf it came from was kept in a dimly lighted, tight crate (to restrict muscle use), and fed an iron-poor liquid diet.

[Ranger Row]

Do you really have the time to investigate all the companies out there that produce food? I sure as hell don't, what free time I have, I can spend on other things. IF some company is extreme, then the govermental regluators should catch it, and the news media report it, but with the level of shady dealing that is acceptable in the world today, it is inevitable that some food will be produced unethically. And while I am an animal lover, I am more concerned with how the companies treat people first, and animals second.



The government doesn't really care about alot of it. The lable "free range" can be applied to animals that have "access" to an outside area. In one case I know of, the door is kept open to a bare dirt area for about five minutes a day. My chickens had access to green grass and all the things living in it 24 hours a day, but I'd not market them as "free range" just because of that.

As for how they treat people... Factory farms are still considered agriculture, so in most cases do not have to pay their employees overtime. Most factory farm wages hover at or just above minimum wage. Hell, even the McDonald's around here are paying $6-$7 an hour now, and I live in a low wage area of the state.

[Godsquisher]

Many people don't have a real choice in where they work, which is why people would take that sort of job to begin with. Besides, the issue is not whether the employee's are moral/ethical, but whether how the company treats said employees is moral/ethical (sometimes even legal).

That is true, and if I find in my investigations that workers are being treated unfairly, I stop doing business with that company. I haven't eaten at McDonald's in almost four years because of such revelations.

But the sentence "I care about animals" implies nothing about whether or not I care about people. You can care about both at the same time.

[Godsquisher]

That's too much thought for a fucking hamburger.

Do you really have the time to investigate all the companies out there that produce food?

I'm lucky in that I live in Boulder, and a variety of options are available to me. I can shop at Whole Foods or Wild Oats or I can walk to the Boulder Co-op to get produce; I can eat out at Turley's or at Sunflower, two local restaurants that cater to people who want sustainably-produced food. In general, I try to buy local, organic produce as much as possible, and for food such as pre-made cereals and the like, I buy organic and check the ingredients for things that I don't eat. If I have a question about a specific company (or if I tend to buy a lot of things from one brand, say, Organic Valley), I make the effort to investigate. I try not to patronize restaurants that don't share my values, and if I'm forced to eat somewhere (say, on a trip), I'll try not to get any animal products, since I don't know where they came from.

I don't think it's that big of a deal. I'm certainly healthier for it, and it allows me to avoid putting stuff in my body that most major manufacturers use (high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated oils, and the like).

Could I do more? Absolutely. I could become a vegan. I could grow my own vegetables. I could volunteer for like-minded organizations.

[Ashes]

I have definitely thought about this myself. The first time it occured to me is when I learned that Phillip Morris owns Kraft Foods. That didn't sit quite right with me. Next, I found out that Nestle does a lot to encourage women worldwide (esp developing nations) to use formula for babies when breastfeeding would be better for so many reasons. Then I found out Nestle supply farms were kidnapping African children to work as slaves on cocoa farms! I don't buy Nestle. Other companies, other concerns. I try to buy local, free trade, and/or organic when possible for these reasons as well as environmental reasons.

articles about nestle:
http://www.laborrights.org/projects/childlab/cocoa.htm

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0838/is_n77/ai_17623557

[Zarkonan]

But the sentence "I care about animals" implies nothing about whether or not I care about people. You can care about both at the same time.

When the discussion is centered around what you consider as ethical when buying food, and the only thing mentioned as a factor is "I care about animals", then it absolutely implies that you don't care about people as much in this context.

[His Noodly Appendage]

22 responses, and I still don't understand how you eat an ethical act.

[Zarkonan]

Well, most of the factory farms that treat their animals like shit, do about the same to their people. But, besides all of that, an employee that is being mistreated can leave... [blah blah blah]

What is with this departure from reality in this thread? Do you really think an unskilled worker at a chicken farm can just pick leave, change their jobs, in this economy? Do you really think they would be working there in the first place if their careers were that mobile?


A factory farm considers its animals to be little more than raw materials. Well, aren't they? I mean, they are after all existing in those cages to be slaughtered and ingested by humans. They are owned, considered property legally and culturally.

I'm all for treating animals humanely, so long as we are honest about why we should do it - it's not about some absolute morality, it's about extending the protections we afford our own species to lower animals in order to preserve some sort of empathy in ourselves.

[Pendaric]

<MD to MF&P>

[Godsquisher]

When the discussion is centered around what you consider as ethical when buying food, and the only thing mentioned as a factor is "I care about animals", then it absolutely implies that you don't care about people as much in this context.

People aren't being killed in horribly inhumane ways. At least not to make us food, which is what this discussion is about.

We're talking about degrees of pain here. I don't think animals should have to suffer while they're alive and die terribly in order that a consumer could buy meat for one dollar less per pound. I also don't think that workers should have to suffer in horrible conditions for the same cheap meat. But the workers aren't dying, and as Ranger points out in the next post, unskilled jobs aren't hard to find. I've had more than one myself.

If fewer people can afford to eat sustainably-produced meat, fewer people will eat meat. And I don't see how that's a bad thing (for the animals, for the environment, or for the people themselves).

[Ranger Row]

What is with this departure from reality in this thread? Do you really think an unskilled worker at a chicken farm can just pick leave, change their jobs, in this economy? Do you really think they would be working there in the first place if their careers were that mobile?


For the most part, yes. It is a job, not a career, and when you are making just about minimum wage, with no time and half for overtime, it is fairly easy to find another low paying job.

Here's an example: In Albert Lea, Minn. back in the early 80s there was a pork processing plant. The company fell on hard times, cut the average wage at the plant from about $22,000 to $16,600 a year. By 1984 the plant was closed.

First part of the 1990s rolls around, and here comes Seaboard Corp (giant agribuisnees/factory farm group.) Seaboard persuades Albert Lea to dish out several million in incentives for waste disposal, factory renovation, tax breaks, and they reopened the plant.
Of course by 1992 some of the workers from the first plant had retired and a few more went to work for Seacorp, but many refused because Seacorp was paying $4500 less than the other company had been paying in 1983 (after the big pay cuts.) Apparently enough of these "unskilled workers" picked other jobs, left the area, but in any case refused to work for the factory farm. The labor shortage was enough that Seacorp started recruiting hispanic workers from the southwest, Mexico and Central America.

Seacorp has since gone on and done this in a couple of towns in the United States, including Guymon, OK.

In Guymon, the turnover rate for employees runs almost 100%, due to the low wages and lack of overtime payment. Seacorp again recruited immigrant workers, from Vietnam, Laos, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico.



Well, aren't they? I mean, they are after all existing in those cages to be slaughtered and ingested by humans. They are owned, considered property legally and culturally.

I'm all for treating animals humanely, so long as we are honest about why we should do it - it's not about some absolute morality, it's about extending the protections we afford our own species to lower animals in order to preserve some sort of empathy in ourselves.


I disagree with you. Yes, animals are property, but they are still sentient beings that deserve better than living covered in their own shit. I'm not a PETA freak; we're at the top of the food chain, I have no problem killing and eating my own food. No, I don't think we should offer the same protections we afford our own species. I believe that animals should not be subjected to conditions that cause abnormal behavior, stress, or harm, directly caused by an effort to maximize profits from raising those animals.


Also, I think we have only looked at two side of "eating ethically" (human and animal,) there is also the environmental impacts of factory farming. In Iowa alone (the top hog state) the numbers of hog farms has fallen 83% in the last 25 years, but the number of hogs in production has risen by at least 4 million hogs. The numbers nationally run about the same, but I don't have that book with me.

What happens is that small farms of a couple of hundred hogs go under, and large factory farms take over with a 1000 hogs in a barn, with some farms have 40,000 hogs on one farm. The pigs are kept indoors for their entire lives, and due to the crowded conditions producers must give massive amounts of antibiotics (the same ones we use) and human growth hormones for profit. Of course the drugs become less effective, and they have to switch to other types, and/or start using drug cocktails. Currently I think there is just one class of antibiotics that are reserved for just human use, and the hog industry is lobbying to get access to them too.

In these confinement pens the shit falls through slotted floors and ends up in large cesspits. The treated sludge that comes out of those cesspits is supposed to be spread on fields for fertilizer. One problem is that there is not enough fields to cover, due to the massive, centralized factory farms. In some cases the factory farms have had to buy standing crops in the field, so they could plow them under to have a place to spread the sludge. Often these cesspits flood, or the sludge is applied too thick in the field to get rid of it, and the waste washes into rivers and streams, causing fish kills. There have also been traces of these antibiotics and hormones found in this treated sludge that is ending up in our water as well.

[Godsquisher]

I'm all for treating animals humanely, so long as we are honest about why we should do it - it's not about some absolute morality, it's about extending the protections we afford our own species to lower animals in order to preserve some sort of empathy in ourselves.

Why difference does it make WHY we do it?

[Godsquisher]

Great post, Ranger.

[Zarkonan]

People aren't being killed in horribly inhumane ways. At least not to make us food, which is what this discussion is about. This discussion was about what we would consider in any consideration of ethics when choosing food.


We're talking about degrees of pain here. I don't think animals should have to suffer while they're alive and die terribly in order that a consumer could buy meat for one dollar less per pound. I also don't think that workers should have to suffer in horrible conditions for the same cheap meat.
I more or less agree with this, though what if the price difference were $10 per pound?


But the workers aren't dying, and as Ranger points out in the next post, unskilled jobs aren't hard to find. I've had more than one myself. I'll deal with this issue when I deal with Ranger.


If fewer people can afford to eat sustainably-produced meat, fewer people will eat meat. And I don't see how that's a bad thing (for the animals, for the environment, or for the people themselves). I'm not interested, just as the OP was not, in this turning into a meat vs. vegetarian debate, so I'll pass on commenting on this.

[Zarkonan]

For the most part, yes. It is a job, not a career, and when you are making just about minimum wage, with no time and half for overtime, it is fairly easy to find another low paying job. I specifically chose the label "career" to try and break out of classist thinking.

As far as it being easy to find a low paying job - can you back this up with any statistics? The unemployment rate, which is the percentage of employable people actively seeking work, out of the total number of employable people suggests otherwise. Current rate is 4.6% http://www.bls.gov/. Turnover may be high on an individual employee basis, but that's not the same when we are looking at the class of individuals called "employees". That class does not have a choice where they work - if they did, the unemployment rate would not be positive. Example: Worker A loses his job, and takes a job with food processor. No other positions were open in his geographic area at the time. He later moves on to another job as other positions opened up. Did he have a choice to work there? In a technical sense, sure, but pratically speaking he had no choice but to take that job while he looked for a new one.


Here's an example: In Albert Lea, Minn. back in the early 80s there was a pork processing plant. The company fell on hard times, cut the average wage at the plant from about $22,000 to $16,600 a year. By 1984 the plant was closed.

First part of the 1990s rolls around, and here comes Seaboard Corp (giant agribuisnees/factory farm group.) Seaboard persuades Albert Lea to dish out several million in incentives for waste disposal, factory renovation, tax breaks, and they reopened the plant.
Of course by 1992 some of the workers from the first plant had retired and a few more went to work for Seacorp, but many refused because Seacorp was paying $4500 less than the other company had been paying in 1983 (after the big pay cuts.) Apparently enough of these "unskilled workers" picked other jobs, left the area, but in any case refused to work for the factory farm. The labor shortage was enough that Seacorp started recruiting hispanic workers from the southwest, Mexico and Central America.

Seacorp has since gone on and done this in a couple of towns in the United States, including Guymon, OK.
Anecdotal at best.


In Guymon, the turnover rate for employees runs almost 100%, due to the low wages and lack of overtime payment. Seacorp again recruited immigrant workers, from Vietnam, Laos, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico. Again, turnover rate is meaningless when we talk about the class of individuals called "employees". Because there are more available workers than jobs, there will always be people there without choice.


I disagree with you. Yes, animals are property, but they are still sentient beings that deserve better than living covered in their own shit. I'm not a PETA freak; we're at the top of the food chain, I have no problem killing and eating my own food. No, I don't think we should offer the same protections we afford our own species. I believe that animals should not be subjected to conditions that cause abnormal behavior, stress, or harm, directly caused by an effort to maximize profits from raising those animals. You want to draw a line and thats fine - but where do you draw it, and what principles do you use to draw it?


Also, I think we have only looked at two side of "eating ethically" (human and animal,) there is also the environmental impacts of factory farming. In Iowa alone (the top hog state) the numbers of hog farms has fallen 83% in the last 25 years, but the number of hogs in production has risen by at least 4 million hogs. The numbers nationally run about the same, but I don't have that book with me.

What happens is that small farms of a couple of hundred hogs go under, and large factory farms take over with a 1000 hogs in a barn, with some farms have 40,000 hogs on one farm. The pigs are kept indoors for their entire lives, and due to the crowded conditions producers must give massive amounts of antibiotics (the same ones we use) and human growth hormones for profit. Of course the drugs become less effective, and they have to switch to other types, and/or start using drug cocktails. Currently I think there is just one class of antibiotics that are reserved for just human use, and the hog industry is lobbying to get access to them too.

In these confinement pens the shit falls through slotted floors and ends up in large cesspits. The treated sludge that comes out of those cesspits is supposed to be spread on fields for fertilizer. One problem is that there is not enough fields to cover, due to the massive, centralized factory farms. In some cases the factory farms have had to buy standing crops in the field, so they could plow them under to have a place to spread the sludge. Often these cesspits flood, or the sludge is applied too thick in the field to get rid of it, and the waste washes into rivers and streams, causing fish kills. There have also been traces of these antibiotics and hormones found in this treated sludge that is ending up in our water as well. Considering environmental effect is a very interesting angle, one that I personally find much more compelling than arbitrary "animal rights" issues.

[Zarkonan]

Great post, Ranger.

Room 115 is open.

[Ranger Row]

I specifically chose the label "career" to try and break out of classist thinking.

As far as it being easy to find a low paying job - can you back this up with any statistics? The unemployment rate, which is the percentage of employable people actively seeking work, out of the total number of employable people suggests otherwise. Current rate is 4.6% http://www.bls.gov/.



Are all those people honestly "actively seeking work"? A common game in the construction field is to ride a job until it is finished, get laid off, and collect unemployment benefits while basically taking a vacation. Sure, most of them fill in the required job contacts per week, but the purposely pick places that would not hire them, or fill in people they know that will not give them up.

But no, I have to concede I do not have any figures on how easy it is to find a low paying job. However, I guess I could do a test here in a town of about 100,000. I could go out and see how many jobs I could get in one day. Not terribly scientific though.


Turnover may be high on an individual employee basis, but that's not the same when we are looking at the class of individuals called "employees". That class does not have a choice where they work - if they did, the unemployment rate would not be positive. Example: Worker A loses his job, and takes a job with food processor. No other positions were open in his geographic area at the time. He later moves on to another job as other positions opened up. Did he have a choice to work there? In a technical sense, sure, but practically speaking he had no choice but to take that job while he looked for a new one.


I'm afraid I do not follow you on the "individual employee basis" and class of individuals call employees thing on turnover. The pig factory I posted about has a turnover rate close to 100%. That is more an individual employees quitting. Did you mean on an individual employer basis?

As for your example worker, he still had the choice, and he left once he found other work. At some point he could still get out. I think the point that others have made is that the animals do not even have that.

Anecdotal at best.

Agreed, but it is from authors who have won Pulitzer prizes for their coverage of factory farming Factory Farms (http://www.factoryfarming.com/empirepigs.htm)


Again, turnover rate is meaningless when we talk about the class of individuals called "employees". Because there are more available workers than jobs, there will always be people there without choice.

True, but that is assuming that one of these unethical food producers are in the area of all these unemployed workers. A man that is out of work in Jersey City, NJ cannot be expected to jump on the bus to Smalltown, OK to kill chickens or pigs. So while we have a national figure for unemployment, I think we would have to look at the local situation at whichever food producer we were considering to be fair. I will freely admit though, everywhere is filled with people doing jobs they don't want to do, just as if that example worker from before went for killing chickens to flipping burgers... he'd probably not want to do it, but would probably be a more ethical place to work.



You want to draw a line and thats fine - but where do you draw it, and what principles do you use to draw it?


As I said before, I draw the line at "that animals should not be subjected to conditions that cause abnormal behavior, stress, or harm, directly caused by an effort to maximize profits from raising those animals." In fact, I have a version of that painted on my sheds, and it appears several times in my business plan.

As for principles... that is the weak part, emotion does not mix well with debate. What I believe, no one else might, and of course it would be wrong of me to force my belief on to others... as long as nothing was being harmed by my beliefs. I'm not saying this incredibly well, but basically that others should not have to suffer to meet our needs.



Considering environmental effect is a very interesting angle, one that I personally find much more compelling than arbitrary "animal rights" issues.

See, and going back to the OP, it is all personal choice. You might not eat Company A's food because they treat their animals bad, I might not eat Company B's food because they underpay their workers, and Godsquisher might not eat Company C's food because they are shitty with the environment. We would all be making food choices for ethical reason, just different ones, and because I believe animals should not suffer does not mean I cannot support a worker at a factory farm getting paid a decent wage.

[Laura D.]

I just finished reading the book The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter by Peter Singer and Jim Mason. It's well-written and remarkably even-handed for a book of its type. But it's got me thinking—how many people actually see what they eat as an ethical choice?

I highly recommend reading Peter Singer. While controversial, he has a lucid style. I disagree with much of his Practical Ethics, but I still refer to it often. I will look for The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter.

After I reviewed this topic, I realize that I have not thought much on food ethics. So I ran a quick Internet search on my own preferred grocery store, and the first article concerned protests against Trader Joe's and the vendors it selects for its private labels: http://biotech.ifcnr.com/article.cfm?NewsID=236.

I read it and I realized that I had never thought about the ethics of using genetically engineered products (organic is as far as I've gotten and that is mainly a sort of vague thought that its healthier). If I had pondered it at all, I assumed genetically engineered food products are part of the process we use in stopping world hunger. And so, it's a good thing . . . right?

I'll be interested in educating myself on these issues in this thread. Ultimately, I guess I just want an easy answer to being a good person. Eat Kosher, avoid shrimp (sorry, allergic to shellfish, nothing to do with Exodus), or shop at this particular food chain and you'll be fine.

God bless,


Laura

[Godsquisher]

I highly recommend reading Peter Singer. While controversial, he has a lucid style. I disagree with much of his Practical Ethics, but I still refer to it often. I will look for The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter.

It was a thought-provoking book and very well-balanced. Many times he came to a different conclusion than I would have suspected or said something akin to "evidence on this is sketchy at best, and there isn't a good reason to avoid it." I recommend the book.

I read it and I realized that I had never thought about the ethics of using genetically engineered products (organic is as far as I've gotten and that is mainly a sort of vague thought that its healthier). If I had pondered it at all, I assumed genetically engineered food products are part of the process we use in stopping world hunger. And so, it's a good thing . . . right?

Well, there is no easy answer to this one. Singer's argument is that genetically engineered food can be both good (in that GM plants often have internal pesticides, reducing the likelihood that water will be polluted with sprayed-on pesticides) and bad (GMOs will almost certainly interbreed with non-GMO plants and could possibly cause irreversible envorinmental harm). Singer argues further that GM crops are created with the first-world farmer in mind and aren't economically viable for less developed nations anyway.

I'll be interested in educating myself on these issues in this thread. Ultimately, I guess I just want an easy answer to being a good person.

I wish there were an easy answer, Laura (boy, do I!). I suppose it all comes down to what you consider important. Do a little research and follow your own conscience. :)

[Godsquisher]

This discussion was about what we would consider in any consideration of ethics when choosing food.

True, and it's apparent that you consider human issues more compelling than animal ones. I don't. But that doesn't mean that I don't think that humans deserve consideration or that I value their lives less than an animal's. I just happen to think that a sow on a factory farm suffers more than the worker who tends her.

I more or less agree with this, though what if the price difference were $10 per pound?

I would think that you couldn't really put a price on the suffering of other creatures, human or animal. If it really were to cost that much more (and having paid $17 for two organic chicken breasts, I can tell you it already comes close!), I think that poorer people for whom this is an ethical issue just wouldn't eat meat.

I think that you and I have the same goal, Zarkonan—the prevention of suffering. Just because we see the issue differently doesn't make us foes. I think we agree more than we disagree. :)

[blastula]

The OP question can apply to all goods consumed - whether it's unethical to buy any product with "unethical" components involved in their production.

In my view, if I know something negative about a company or product, I won't support it, which applies to eating as well. Knowing that the more meat we consume, the more damage to the environment, and also considering the maltreatment of the factory farm animal, I consciously choose to seldomly buy meat products. I don't think killing animals is wrong, but it is wrong to abuse them.