At first I wanted to discuss the whaling industry in Japan, and the infamous government decision to take 30$ million dollars out of the tsunami relief fund and spend it on whaling instead, but then I thought it'd be better to talk about a much more severe problem:

Massive government subsidies of factory farming in the U.S., and how taxpayers are forking over their wallets every year for an industry that is one of the greatest environmental, health, and humane catastrophes in our lifetime.

In the past decade tens of billions (oh, I wish that were a typo) in subsidies have been used to prop up factory farming through subsidizing animal feed and other operations. For those that have been kept in the dark about the realities of factory farming, you might think, "Great, thanks to our wonderful government we can buy hamburgers cheaper."

Unfortunately, factory farming is one of the top 3 causes of global warming according to the United Nations--accounting for more greenhouse gases than all the cars, trucks, planes, and ships in the world--and is also one of the top causes of water and air pollution, land and water use, deforestation, species extinction, and responsible for the greatest animal abuse in our planet's history: 9 billion animals brutalized in inhumane factory conditions every single year.

I can't claim personal injury on this one, since I'm not paying any tax money to the U.S. government yet, but it is pretty infuriating that despite millions of Americans trying to fight the environmental and ethical abuse of factory farms by purchasing their meat and dairy from independent farms, consuming less meat in general, or going vegetarian/vegan, their tax money is still being used to keep the industry afloat.

If no one cares about the subsidy issue, I think it'd also be interesting to discuss the differences in perceptions and how climate change, and environmental issues period, are being handled between Japan and America. Awareness of factory farming seems pretty much nonexistent in Japan, whereas I feel many Americans at least know that their decisions to eat a steak for lunch, and drink dairy, screws over the planet far more than driving around a Hummer would. Awareness in Japan of how consumers can fight these issues with their choices seems to be around the lines of: "I lowered my air conditioner a few degrees. Good Samaritan badge for me." Which is interesting considering that I think more people in Japan have knowledge of climate change, whereas many Americans are still in denial.

...And because videos are way better than giant blocks of text:

Food Inc's Segment on Corn Subsidies:

Awesome 10 min video about the ethical and social tragedy of factory farming:

Two minute video summing up why factory farming is screwing us all over, and how we can stop it:

What specific US legislation established and maintains the subsidies you mentioned? What are the specific numbers involved here?

Aijin Wrote:Awareness in Japan of how consumers can fight these issues with their choices seems to be around the lines of: "I lowered my air conditioner a few degrees. Good Samaritan badge for me." Which is interesting considering that I think more people in Japan have knowledge of climate change, whereas many Americans are still in denial.

Yeah, I've always found it interesting that such a high percentage of the Japanese population says they are concerned about global warming and environmental issues, while such a low percentage of the Japanese population takes any real steps against it.

I guess that's how culture works? A few, largely ineffective ways to curb energy use are memes which make people feel like they are doing something, without any real critical thinking on the subject. This might just be the way that most cultures deal with any given difficult problem.

I don't plan on becoming a vegetarian.
I actually agree with Japan's right to whaling. Since so much of Tohoku's coast was destroyed by the disaster, I think it does make some sense to put money to an industry logically to have ties to the region. It's not completely ludicrous. Watch out 鯨.　LOL

Um, agriculture subsidies are a necessity in my opinion. Their original intent was well intended and quite necessary at the onset. It's one of the things of the New Deal I particularly like. Having family in the agriculture business, I know that these subsidies are still important.

I do think that certain industries don't need to be getting them anymore, but a lot of research far beyond what I'd ever do needs to be done to make a truly definitive stance on whether they are good or bad.

imabi Wrote:...Um, agriculture subsidies are a necessity in my opinion. Their original intent was well intended and quite necessary at the onset....

I agree with you on that point. Agricultural subsidies are necessary, within reason. I am not too keen on subsidizing the whaling industry. A few 'sushi high-rollers' benefit at the PR expense of the nation. Interesting points! I gotta get back to my cheeseburger and milkshake!

kitakitsune Wrote:What specific US legislation established and maintains the subsidies you mentioned? What are the specific numbers involved here?

Here's a breakdown of many of the subsidies (2011 data is not complete, however, due to various reasons explained at the bottom of the page): http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=...=livestock

Here's an article on the animal feed. For more detailed data, go to the full report in the article: http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release...-0113.html

The majority of the livestock's subsidies come in the form of the huge corn and soybean subsidies, which are used for feed. Around 50% of soybeans, and 60% of the corn grown in the U.S. is fed to livestock. The corn subsidies also tie into many other topics, such as the so-called junk food subsidies, where we're subsidizing high fructose corn syrup, corn starch, etc.

I disagree with the health argument. There is nothing inherently healthy (or unhealthy) about vegetarianism, or with eating meat for that matter. It's more that the standard diet is so awfully bad that any move away from refined foods produces health benefits. Coincidentally, this tends to happen in people who decide to subscribe to a diet ideology, regardless of what that ideology actually is (low-carb, paleo, vegetarian...), with more exercise tacked on to boot. Lots of confounding factors here.

And when you look at what actually matters the most for general health, it's still about obesity, inactivity and stress. Keep them low, and the details don't really matter all that much.

I do respect vegetarianism on ethical/environmental grounds though, but that's a completely different issue. So is veganism (for god's sake, if you go that route, make sure you supplement B12)

Aijin Wrote:Awesome 10 min video about the ethical and social tragedy of factory farming:

I was interested in the ethical part about the issue, as I have never took vegetarianism arguments seriously, because I believe in the natural food chain. But that video made it clear that there's another side of the story too, that is the treatment of animals.

That treatment of factory farms to animals is very wrong because even if you will eat some animal, it's different from treating it with cruelty and inflecting suffering and pain on it for its life time. Deer run and mate freely before being eaten by a lion.

But I still can't afford to spare care for animal rights right now for I'm using it all for human rights, as there's still a huge amount of work that needs to be done in this area. The environmental and health parts of factory farming issue are worth the concern though.

imabi Wrote:I actually agree with Japan's right to whaling. Since so much of Tohoku's coast was destroyed by the disaster, I think it does make some sense to put money to an industry logically to have ties to the region. It's not completely ludicrous. Watch out 鯨.　LOL

Um, agriculture subsidies are a necessity in my opinion. Their original intent was well intended and quite necessary at the onset. It's one of the things of the New Deal I particularly like. Having family in the agriculture business, I know that these subsidies are still important.

I do think that certain industries don't need to be getting them anymore, but a lot of research far beyond what I'd ever do needs to be done to make a truly definitive stance on whether they are good or bad.

Well, that research has been done long ago. Subsidies are a terrible waste of money, except for research when firms don't want to take the risk of e.g. developing vaccines. The only people who disagree with this are either uninformed or directly benefitting from subsidies, which is, frankly, unsurprising. Agricultural subsidies are also directly responsible for preventing many developing countries from benefitting from international trade. If you think that farmers in the US, EU or Japan need subsidies more than farmers in e.g. Burkina Faso who live on less than $1/day need free trade (http://www.oxfam.org/en/campaigns/trade/...rkina_faso), then that's a perfectly consistent political stance, but let's call a spade a spade: you're saying that the right of Western farmers to keep doing what they've been doing is worth more than the right of Africans (or Thais, Philippinos, Vietnamese, Peruvians, ...) to escape from abject poverty, and you expect taxpayers to pay for that.

In the case of whaling, it would be better and cheaper to just pay the former whalers to do nothing, because whale meat is so unpopular that it is sitting unsold in government freezers in Japan (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120614a7.html). Not to mention the damage to Japan's image abroad. I've met people who wouldn't buy Japanese products because of the whaling issue.

That aside, have you ever tried whale meat? It's revolting. Sort of like tuna sushi that has gone off Many Japanese have bad memories of whale meat in school lunch servings...

Um, you just put tons of things that I didn't say. I realize there are places that are hurting in other countries because of American interests, but there is a purpose for them. Whether you agree with that purpose or not is completely fine, and I'm not by any means an ardent supporter of them. There are also plenty of ways that America can be more philanthropic and be successful in the developing world, and so can other first world societies. But, the stark truth is that the reason why those people suffer is because the rest of the world sits on its ass, not because of one thing here or another.

I don't like that so many whales are being killed, but the Japanese do have right to some whaling if they please. Paying the whalers to do nothing is stupid too. Rather, training in something else would be a smarter use of Japanese tax yen.

imabi Wrote:Um, you just put tons of things that I didn't say. I realize there are places that are hurting in other countries because of American interests, but there is a purpose for them. Whether you agree with that purpose or not is completely fine, and I'm not by any means an ardent supporter of them. There are also plenty of ways that America can be more philanthropic and be successful in the developing world, and so can other first world societies. But, the stark truth is that the reason why those people suffer is because the rest of the world sits on its ass, not because of one thing here or another.

But the whole point is that these people don't need help or philanthropy at all, on the contrary. All they need is what Americans are normally ready to grant anyone: a fair chance of competing in the market. But they can't compete with subsidized farmers.

Whaling is a quite different issue. Nobody wants whale meat. It's not that Japan is competing with other countries here. There's no market for it except for a handful of restaurants catering to the nostalgic. So without the subsidies, Japanese whaling would just completely disappear. I'm also fine with granting Native Americans or Greenlanders for example the right to hunt the occasional whale with traditional methods, but subsidizing the whaling industry in Japan is absurd. If they want to keep this industry at all cost, by all means support it, go out to sea, cruise around for a month or so, and come back without hunting whales. At least then the cost for storing frozen whale meat doesn't arise.

undead_saif Wrote:That treatment of factory farms to animals is very wrong because even if you will eat some animal, it's different from treating it with cruelty and inflecting suffering and pain on it for its life time. Deer run and mate freely before being eaten by a lion.

Exactly, it's not the act of killing animals itself that is a problem, it's how we're doing it as a modern society: Inflicting crazy amounts of suffering, just so the meat companies make more money and we get cheaper prices.

Nature isn't always pretty, as anyone that's seen a lion eating a gazelle on National Geographic can vouch for, but animals in nature get to experience life as they were meant to live it. Eating pigs isn't innately cruel, but pigs being born, raised, and dying without ever touching the ground, being forced into crates so tiny they can't do anything but chew on the bars after going insane from the confinement, is. Eating eggs isn't cruel, but forcing hens into insanely cramped spaces, without enough space to even stand up, let alone spread their wings, for their entire lives is.

A really cool site that came out recently is this interactive page that puts viewers into a gestation crate: http://www.animalvisuals.org/projects/em...ationcrate

undead_saif Wrote:But I still can't afford to spare care for animal rights right now for I'm using it all for human rights, as there's still a huge amount of work that needs to be done in this area. The environmental and health parts of factory farming issue are worth the concern though.

I think my first response when I learned all about factory farming was also that yeah it's tragic, but there are so many human issues so how can I spare thought for the animal ones? But it's not a matter of choosing one or the other. Just like if you want to fight AIDS in Africa, and hunger in Africa, you don't have to pick only one and say, "Well, AIDS is a problem, but I won't worry about it until we solve the hunger issue first." Human problems aren't going away anytime soon, but if we ignore the issues of factory farming in the mean time, by the time we get around to it it'll be far too late.

We can end both the cruelty, and the environmental devastation, of factory farming simply by reducing our purchases of these products, or stopping purchasing them all together. It's as simple as having a delicious veggie burger instead of a cheeseburger for lunch, or pouring soy milk on your cereal instead of factory farm dairy. Or if you're a diehard meat addict, go for sustainable fish and other meats that don't involve as much cruelty and environmental damage. While it was definitely pretty hard decades ago to live without factory farm products, the industry of alternatives has grown so rapidly lately that it's a piece of cake

As I said I'm not going to actively participate in this cause, but maybe passively, as I already told my family about this and I think I will take it into consideration when I choose my food from now on.
Thanks Aijin.

@Irixmark: I don't disagree with what you're saying. I was responding to how the other person started accusing me of saying things I didn't.
Part of their aid is getting them in the market. I think that goes hand in hand. You just don't give people handouts. You give them a hand-up.
I think the whaling issue in Japan is probably more complicated than either of us can truly comment on without getting into a lot of grey area.
I do definitely think that they should kill far less whales than they are now.

Aijin,

You argue against factory farming from the perspective of the deforestation and environmental damage it causes, and also that it is inhumane to the animals. But, wouldn't giving the animals better conditions like free-range living, organic feed, etc. require a lot more land than crowding them into a small space? And wouldn't trying to produce enough food using minimal farmland lead to even higher-density methods? How do you propose addressing both of these concerns at once?

All I know is that I really do love steak, and so long as there are cows being made into steak, I'm fine. I do wish that cows were not totally abused. I mean, they should be able to graze on a field for quite a while, but I don't think it's practical to pamper them or stop eating them entirely.

What next? Keep chickens as pets rather than grilled or fried on a plate? I like the last option.

Meat is awesome. Think of the bright side. If reincarnation is true, they might be human in the next life.

This month the United Nation's Environmental Program's alert service posted a fantastic report about the environmental devastation of the meat industry. In the solutions part of the report it talks about lowering consumption of meat products, and switching to more sustainable meats, as solutions.

http://na.unep.net/geas/getUNEPPageWithA...icle_id=92

Corodon Wrote:Aijin,

You argue against factory farming from the perspective of the deforestation and environmental damage it causes, and also that it is inhumane to the animals. But, wouldn't giving the animals better conditions like free-range living, organic feed, etc. require a lot more land than crowding them into a small space? And wouldn't trying to produce enough food using minimal farmland lead to even higher-density methods? How do you propose addressing both of these concerns at once?

That's exactly the thing: It's the unsustainable consumption rates of livestock itself that is the main root of all the problems. Choosing to eat grass-fed beef, or eggs from hens at local farms you know treat the animals well, is far better on the ethical standpoint (both in terms of the suffering inflicted on the animals, as well as on the workers) but it doesn't remove most of the environmental issues. 150 million cows on organic farms produce methane just like 150 million cows in factory farms, after all.

The only real solution is for consumer awareness to spread, and for people to actively choose to cut back on their consumption of unsustainable products. This is going to become more and more of a necessity in the upcoming years, when the standard of living rapidly increases in developing countries, and more people transition to the American diet of meat in practically every meal. The statistical projections are terrifying to say the least.

But, I have hope even if things seem so grim. Consumer awareness of these issues is at an all time high, the market for alternative animal products (fake meats, cheeses, etc) has been growing exponentially, and restaurants that offer non-meat options--or are entirely vegetarian/vegan--have been multiplying big time since I first came to the US. Major universities have implemented Meatless Monday programs in their cafeterias, and some big colleges have even opened cafes that are entirely vegan.

There's nothing terrifying eating more animals if there are more animals. Human evolution was fueled by the consumption of meat, and quite honestly, meat is awesome. Meat in all meals in America? That's not true. Not everyone can afford it..I sure can't.
Urban communities, which is where most people live, can't rely on local farms. That's just dumb. What are you going to do? Start putting farms on top of the roofs of high rises? There is barely enough room in cities for people, much less cows. I watched a video of cows being extremely abused in the later part of their lives in Japan on youtube.

Wuhu, methane gas. Every mammal farts. We could reduce the amount of that greenhouse gas by getting rid of most humans, the Earth rejoices.

You just need to end a full course meal of steak, fish, and chicken. All three at the same time would be awesome. I have no intentions to quit eating meat even if a cow was slaughtered in front of my eyes.

astendra Wrote:I disagree with the health argument. There is nothing inherently healthy (or unhealthy) about vegetarianism, or with eating meat for that matter. It's more that the standard diet is so awfully bad that any move away from refined foods produces health benefits. Coincidentally, this tends to happen in people who decide to subscribe to a diet ideology, regardless of what that ideology actually is (low-carb, paleo, vegetarian...), with more exercise tacked on to boot. Lots of confounding factors here.

Right, diet is all about moderation. It's not that meat is unhealthy, it's that many people consume a disproportionate amount of it. A well balanced diet that includes meat is fine in terms of healthiness, but I think the issue is that SAD (standard American diet) isn't balanced, and does include too much meat, especially red. I am not a nutritionist, but it feels like every single day I see a new study linking America's excessive red meat consumption with cancer and other diseases.

Many people would certainly benefit from adding more vegetables, fruits, legumes, and whole grains to their diet. Plant-based foods are extremely nutrient dense, packed with vitamins, minerals, dietary fiber, and phytochemicals, after all.

That's crazy and tragic about that couple. But hey, there are stupid people in every wake of life, veganism is definitely not different in that regard. Most animal product alternatives (like soy milk) are heavily fortified with B12, so it's not really an issue for most vegans, but I guess some people just don't realize that they should at least do basic research when they change to any diet.

imabi Wrote:Meat in all meals in America? That's not true. Not everyone can afford it..I sure can't.

Meat with every meal is very affordable. Bone-in chicken, pork loin, and ground beef is usually $1-4/lb. I'm not saying it's the cheapest option, but it's far from being a luxury. Steak ($6-15/lb) with every meal would be a luxury (until you can't poop).

Steak every meal would be heaven. I still think saying meat is unhealthy is pretty dumb. All things in moderation.

Aijin Wrote:That's exactly the thing: It's the unsustainable consumption rates of livestock itself that is the main root of all the problems.

I would love to hear actual number for what environmentalists actually consider "sustainable" consumption that non-detremental. Stuff like "A person/family eating x pounds of beef/steak a week, and x pounds of chicken a week versus current amounts of Y and Z. Would be sustainable and trim back the carbon footprint." These are easier for people to meet and for people to check and see if they are consuming too much.

Quote:But, I have hope even if things seem so grim. Consumer awareness of these issues is at an all time high, the market for alternative animal products (fake meats, cheeses, etc) has been growing exponentially, and restaurants that offer non-meat options--or are entirely vegetarian/vegan--have been multiplying big time since I first came to the US. Major universities have implemented Meatless Monday programs in their cafeterias, and some big colleges have even opened cafes that are entirely vegan.

Restaurants and stores love to carry these items because they can charge a premium on them. Usually people that are diehard vegetarians or vegans have a disposable income to support such lifestyles.

imabi Wrote:There's nothing terrifying eating more animals if there are more animals. Human evolution was fueled by the consumption of meat, and quite honestly, meat is awesome.

i'm not sure if you've not grasped the issues concerning meat, or whether you are just being flippant, but...
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/549
I haven't checked all the facts on this page, but it's a pretty good overview of the sustainability issues. You'll be able to debate a point or two, but most of the sustainability issues are well accepted.

Human evolution didn't involve 7,000,000,000 humans all eating meat every day, with a population still rising. It isn't just about how much you like the taste of meat, or how you personally feel about killing and eating an animal anymore, sustainability issues are problems that face us all. It's not even necessarily about cutting meat out of your diet completely.

It's simply about making responsible adult choices about how much and what kind of meat you will eat, and where you are willing to buy it from.

imabi Wrote:Wuhu, methane gas. Every mammal farts. We could reduce the amount of that greenhouse gas by getting rid of most humans, the Earth rejoices.

i take it you'll be 1st in line to volunteer to be got rid of then?

Yes, overpopulation is one of the most severe problems the world is facing right now, as it has a knock on effect on close to every other critical issue of our times. Remember that if everyone on earth lived as Americans do, we would need about 5 planets to support us all.

here's David Attenborough's charity: http://www.populationmatters.org/

There are so many people in the world right now who are dedicating their lives to making human life sustainable, and to preserve those other things in the world we all value while we still can. Well, you don't have to dedicate your life to it. But as educated citizens, i think it's important to understand the effect our lives have on the world and other people, and decide what kind of person we really want to be. We can stick our heads in the sand, pretend it isn't happening, and leave other people to fix our problems for us, or we can contribute by learning what manageable things we can do and acting on them. I know which i want to be...

vix86 Wrote:I would love to hear actual number for what environmentalists actually consider "sustainable" consumption that non-detremental. Stuff like "A person/family eating x pounds of beef/steak a week, and x pounds of chicken a week versus current amounts of Y and Z. Would be sustainable and trim back the carbon footprint." These are easier for people to meet and for people to check and see if they are consuming too much.

The easiest solution would be for all of us to eat just organic/grass-fed beef etc. It would be quite expensive, actually prohibitively expensive for most people to eat meat, but the cost would reflect how much we can actually afford without damaging the environment.

Same with fish & seafood: if the EU, Japan and Korea stopped subsidizing their fishing fleets and quotas were sustainably managed, the price of fish would reflect the true damage we do to the environment. There are a handful examples of where that works well, mostly from the US and some from New Zealand and Australia.

The consumption of meat was a huge boost to the development of the brain during the course of human evolution. I think the whole notion that meat is unhealthy is ludicrous.

And there haven't been 7 billion people through the course of human evolution. The numbers of humans of our lineage has always been a small number.

No, I think that the people complaining about methane gas from cow farts should be the first today because, again, I think it's stupid. I'm sure there were many more farts coming out of the ass of animals during the age of the dinosaurs.

Yes, human evolution did involve our ancestors eating meat at every opportunity, whether it be scavenging or hunting. Read up on the history of hunting.

Our race started from primates having to leave the trees with the loss of luxurious forests about 3 million years ago. They had to deal with climates similar to that of Ethiopia, and meat primates essential proteins necessary for brain development. It takes thousands of generations to make a difference, but it was the difference.

Now, people can eat whatever the hell they want in big quantities. I can stuff my face, but I don't. In fact, I'm very skinny. However, I don't think my fish, chicken, and beef is leading me to an early death.