Excellent article on the foie gras debate [General]
2009 Mar 9
Thank you, Medicineja-
I read the link you posted, and it is a thoughtful and considered discussion.
As someone who has visited a foie gras operation in Quebec, south of Montreal, I can say unequivocally these ducks are not mistreated. Of course, if your mission in life is to ban any and all use of animals, including animals as food, then you will never agree. This is why activists post ridiculous and inflammatory photos to support their cause -- which is, in a nutshell, to never rest until animals are never used for anything, period.
The foie gras debate is emotional, and without limit. Sadly, reason is rarely allowed to cloud interpretations.
For the record, I eat chicken too. Also for the record, foie gras is very rich and fatty and, while exquisitely delicious, should not be consumed regularly, for the sake of your health.
Kind regards, RonEade.com
I read the link you posted, and it is a thoughtful and considered discussion.
As someone who has visited a foie gras operation in Quebec, south of Montreal, I can say unequivocally these ducks are not mistreated. Of course, if your mission in life is to ban any and all use of animals, including animals as food, then you will never agree. This is why activists post ridiculous and inflammatory photos to support their cause -- which is, in a nutshell, to never rest until animals are never used for anything, period.
The foie gras debate is emotional, and without limit. Sadly, reason is rarely allowed to cloud interpretations.
For the record, I eat chicken too. Also for the record, foie gras is very rich and fatty and, while exquisitely delicious, should not be consumed regularly, for the sake of your health.
Kind regards, RonEade.com
2009 Mar 9
Some fairly persuasive writing, but based on an admittedly v. quick skim (of the article), i'm sort of puzzled as to who makes up "the anti-foie gras movement" the author refers to?
Is it a cogent, consistent or identifiable movement? Are we to infer the movement is home to and serves both those who affected public policy, on the one hand, and those who engaged in vandalism and videotaping activities, on the other?
And, re. the movement's purported success in its "... ability to carve foie gras off as a distinct and separate issue from the rest of food production", where would that leave those who might see wedge issues as useful lenses through which to deliberately bring focus on a broader set of practices?
I know its a single blog article and the author makes some points i found myself nodding in agreement to, but i also wonder if s/he might be falling on the same swords warned against, e.g., over-generalizing and straw-man arguments?
Is it a cogent, consistent or identifiable movement? Are we to infer the movement is home to and serves both those who affected public policy, on the one hand, and those who engaged in vandalism and videotaping activities, on the other?
And, re. the movement's purported success in its "... ability to carve foie gras off as a distinct and separate issue from the rest of food production", where would that leave those who might see wedge issues as useful lenses through which to deliberately bring focus on a broader set of practices?
I know its a single blog article and the author makes some points i found myself nodding in agreement to, but i also wonder if s/he might be falling on the same swords warned against, e.g., over-generalizing and straw-man arguments?
2009 Mar 9
Make no mistake, Itchy Feet, the anti-foie gras campaign has its roots in PETA, which would have no one use animals anywhere for anything. Foie gras is a handy target because it is a very small industry, and taking it on is not as daunting as, say, taking on the dairy or beef or pork or poultry industry. So, they pick a small group of producers and intimidate ... That is their modus operandi. Kind regards, RonEade.com
2009 Mar 9
So, why not call it the "PETA anti-foie grass campaign" then? Or, does that become a more limiting reference than, for example, referring to a movement? my point here is that the imprecision of that label, inadvertent or not, collates a whole spectrum of people who may share few other commonalities in terms of how to affect change.
Also, I have no allegiance to PETA, but i doubt v. much they've never taken on the bigger sectors. Its not like a "movement" can't tackle or have in its sights multiple targets, even if they focus on a couple key ones.
Also, I have no allegiance to PETA, but i doubt v. much they've never taken on the bigger sectors. Its not like a "movement" can't tackle or have in its sights multiple targets, even if they focus on a couple key ones.
2009 Mar 9
The foie gras debate is intense at times and I do think its not the major problem in terms of treating animals humanely. I freely admit that I do eat foie gras and like it. While I have not had the full tour of a foie gras farm, I have been out to Mariposa once and noticed the ducks walking around the barn yard area.
I guess for me, I find both lobster and foie gras to not be such a huge issue as I think the animals get a fairly good life overall. Others may care to disagree and that's fair.
I am finding that I am feeling more guilty eating the mass produced eggs, chickens and beef. It seems to me those animals do not have much of a life being relatively cooped up.
I am making an effort to buy more free range chickens and eggs - I do know there is a question about how much time they get to roam. I am also trying to buy more beef from the butcher who tends to deal with smaller operations.
Just my thoughts.
I guess for me, I find both lobster and foie gras to not be such a huge issue as I think the animals get a fairly good life overall. Others may care to disagree and that's fair.
I am finding that I am feeling more guilty eating the mass produced eggs, chickens and beef. It seems to me those animals do not have much of a life being relatively cooped up.
I am making an effort to buy more free range chickens and eggs - I do know there is a question about how much time they get to roam. I am also trying to buy more beef from the butcher who tends to deal with smaller operations.
Just my thoughts.
2009 Mar 9
I have only read about 1/3 of the article in question, but I've stated it before and agree with Medicine Jar that how an animal meets its end is pale in comparison to how it was raised. This is why I believe that the people who originally drafted the Halal and Kosher designations would be rolling over in their graves if they saw what passes as such today. Way back then, there was pretty much only 1 way to raise an animal and that was the idyllic pasture scenario that we all think of when we think of a "farm". They simply could not have imagined that there could ever possibly be an inhumane way to raise an animal, so they only drafted rules on how to humanely slaughter them.
For me it is a fairly moot point if the last 30 seconds of an animal's life are traumatic, if the whole rest of its life was too. Which is pretty much the case for just about any meat you buy in the supermarket, bar none.
For me it is a fairly moot point if the last 30 seconds of an animal's life are traumatic, if the whole rest of its life was too. Which is pretty much the case for just about any meat you buy in the supermarket, bar none.
2009 Mar 9
Foie gras is a matter of personal choice. As is, say, buying Lillydale chicken. The bottom line is, as I have witnessed, the ducks raised for foie gras (incidentally, fed a corn-enriched diet only during the last 10 days of life) are in no way distressed. Yes, at the end of the day the ducks are slaughtered. And so are so many other animals. That is reality. If you want steak, a bovine must be killed. The real issue is with PETA folks who would have no animals used for anything. Kind regards, RonEade.com
2009 Mar 9
No, I disagree with you Ron. You paint it like it is black and white, and it is not. Yup, my steak was once a cow and in the end was slaughtered. Just like the one from the supermarket. But my cow actually did live a pretty idyllic life - grazing in a huge pasture with about 15 or 20 other bovines on a couple of hundred acres. All-in-all a pretty good life versus the feed lot life whence supermarket beef comes.
Yes, it is a choice. But as with many choices, there are ethics involved. And you seemed to white-wash that fact. Getting up in the morning and going next door and putting a few rounds of lead in your neighbour's head is a choice, too. Thank goodness that not many people make that choice, though.
Food is ethics. Everything we eat has ethical consequences. And some food items carry far greater 'karmic weight' than others. This is plain and simple fact which cannot be whitewashed.
Yes, it is a choice. But as with many choices, there are ethics involved. And you seemed to white-wash that fact. Getting up in the morning and going next door and putting a few rounds of lead in your neighbour's head is a choice, too. Thank goodness that not many people make that choice, though.
Food is ethics. Everything we eat has ethical consequences. And some food items carry far greater 'karmic weight' than others. This is plain and simple fact which cannot be whitewashed.
2009 Mar 10
Hi Zymurgist,
With respect, no where have I talked about condoning inhumane treatment of animals, never mind any "whitewash" to hide such rare instances. I have visited dairy farms, hog farms, chicken/egg farms, foie gras operations, and beef farms in Ontario, many in the Ottawa area, and no where have I seen mistreatment of animals. In those rare instances where inhumane treatment is discovered by (or reported to) authorities, it properly makes front-page news -- because such occurrences are mercifully very infrequent. As for "putting a few rounds of lead in your neighbour's head" being somehow equivalent to choices we all make while grocery shopping, well, I couldn't begin to get my mind around that analogy ... Kind regards, RonEade.com
With respect, no where have I talked about condoning inhumane treatment of animals, never mind any "whitewash" to hide such rare instances. I have visited dairy farms, hog farms, chicken/egg farms, foie gras operations, and beef farms in Ontario, many in the Ottawa area, and no where have I seen mistreatment of animals. In those rare instances where inhumane treatment is discovered by (or reported to) authorities, it properly makes front-page news -- because such occurrences are mercifully very infrequent. As for "putting a few rounds of lead in your neighbour's head" being somehow equivalent to choices we all make while grocery shopping, well, I couldn't begin to get my mind around that analogy ... Kind regards, RonEade.com
2009 Mar 10
Hi Ron, I have no doubt whatsoever that there are a lot of local farms which treat their animals extremely well - I deal with several of them personally and have been for years. But this is not where most meat comes from. Most meat comes from feed lots exactly like the ones in the movie "Fast Food Nation", or the book "Omnivore's Dilemma". Yes, even in Canada this is true. And most people just like to block that fact out of their head because they don't like to think of themselves as supporting that activity. It is far from "infrequent". It is quite institutionalized. And perfectly legal, as such.
And I did not say my example was "equivalent". I was making an analogy. In making analogies we purposely compare 2 things which are not equivalent in order to draw similarities to make a point. Not equivalencies, but similarities. If we were to try to draw an analogy between 2 things that are identical/equivalent it would be quite boring and ineffectual because we would be comparing something with itself. A == A. B == B. It says nothing. The point I was trying to make is that it is a slippery slope. The extreme example I gave was the far end of that slope. But once one dismisses any activity as just "a matter of personal choice", one starts sliding down that slope. And when one starts, just where does one stop?
But you are right that you did not outright condone the inhumane treatment of animals. But in my reading you did completely brush off any claims that it happens in the first place, as you just did again in your response just now with the rather preposterous claim that such treatment is infrequent.
www.cbc.ca
Perhaps it comes down to the definition of "inhumane". In my book, that means that if I saw it happening to a human, I would be outraged. In this case, nobody reports it because it is legal. Just like how bashing a baby seal in the head with a spiked club may be legal.
I don't agree with an awful lot of what PETA does, but I do like some of what they do. I like they fact that they try to open people's eyes to reality. People choosing to walk around with a blindfold on because it is convenient to do so is what got us into the serious economic situation we are in. Believing the "old MacDonald" myth about where our meat comes from is another way in which people choose to walk around with a blindfold on. There's another analogy BTW. I'm all for removing people's blindfolds. The problem is that some people are just so ferociously attached to them that they just don't want to have them removed.
And I did not say my example was "equivalent". I was making an analogy. In making analogies we purposely compare 2 things which are not equivalent in order to draw similarities to make a point. Not equivalencies, but similarities. If we were to try to draw an analogy between 2 things that are identical/equivalent it would be quite boring and ineffectual because we would be comparing something with itself. A == A. B == B. It says nothing. The point I was trying to make is that it is a slippery slope. The extreme example I gave was the far end of that slope. But once one dismisses any activity as just "a matter of personal choice", one starts sliding down that slope. And when one starts, just where does one stop?
But you are right that you did not outright condone the inhumane treatment of animals. But in my reading you did completely brush off any claims that it happens in the first place, as you just did again in your response just now with the rather preposterous claim that such treatment is infrequent.
www.cbc.ca
Perhaps it comes down to the definition of "inhumane". In my book, that means that if I saw it happening to a human, I would be outraged. In this case, nobody reports it because it is legal. Just like how bashing a baby seal in the head with a spiked club may be legal.
I don't agree with an awful lot of what PETA does, but I do like some of what they do. I like they fact that they try to open people's eyes to reality. People choosing to walk around with a blindfold on because it is convenient to do so is what got us into the serious economic situation we are in. Believing the "old MacDonald" myth about where our meat comes from is another way in which people choose to walk around with a blindfold on. There's another analogy BTW. I'm all for removing people's blindfolds. The problem is that some people are just so ferociously attached to them that they just don't want to have them removed.
2009 Mar 10
edit: oops, shouldn't write long responses. didn't see Zym's post. Will leave original, as is, though.
next morning edit: struck earlier reference to "1000's" of case files. Don't want to inflate numbers (it was a long time ago).
+++++++++
Omni-O, in two separate posts, you strongly associate PETA w/ the Foi Gras movement as though the latter has no relevance outside of PETA. Are you overstating the association, and if not, do you have professional or other insiders information? I ask b/c a quick visit to Wikipedia's page on Foi Gras reveals i) PETA is not the only well-known org that's taken this on as a cause, and, in fact, ii) several countries have introduced legislation.
Foi gras isn't my soapbox. I agree w/ the article's assertion there are bigger causes, and in 15 yrs of being a vegetarian, i've never been drawn into a Foi Gras debate. And, i don't think i will here, other than to suggest that for a lack of strong evidence that demonstrates an explicit association between PETA and the anti- "movement" its belittling to those who don't pledge allegiance to PETA (but who might take a stand against foi gras consumption). It puts you in a similar reductionist camp the article in question rails against.
And by belittling, i'm not suggesting that associations w/ PETA are necessarily evil. Whatever its beginnings, its evolved into a fairly sophisticated and perhaps even a mainstreamed organization / cause, and like all such entities, i'd guess (i lack your certainty, but i'll speculate) it serves as an umbrella to kooks and rationalists alike. What i might ask: is PETA too easy an org to demonize, somewhat similar to foie gras consumption? I mean, if they are sooooo irrational, how have they managed to mobilize so many people and influence the activities of various corporations?
i ask that with a certain naivete, not being too familiar w/ the org, but suspecting there's a bit of blame the messenger'ism involved. For all their faults, they've probably been good (effective) messengers for their cause, and (i'd guess) they've done / sponsored some of the hard work of uncovering some of the less than ethical practices in various sectors involving animal husbandry, etc.
Which brings me to my next point: I'm not exactly certain what to make of your visits to the farms and other operations, nor your assertion concerning those "rare" instances re. the discovery / reporting to authorities of inhumane treatment and their trumpeting in press.
Two anecdotes as counters: in high-school, i worked briefly (3-4 days) on a crew dispatched to a couple farms helping collect chickens--3 in one hand and 4 in the other, toss into a small pen and hand-off to the guys in the truck... that part didn't bother me as a desensitized, dumb (and carnivorous) teen. What did were the occasional acts of violence against the birds -- i witnessed more than one adult casually kick birds distances of 15 or 20 ft.
Several yrs later, late university, i took on a temp. job w/ a well-known (mainstream) org that works for the prevention of cruelty against animals. You can probably narrow down the field, but i won't name names (pm me, if you must). My job was to help collate and abstract 100's of case files, spanning a pretty lengthy period (and incl. other countries), ranging from "mundane" (e.g., slaughterhouses that failed to fix malfunctioning equip't) to less mundane, included both big, well known operations and many, fewer lesser known ones. Included in each case were press clippings, when the story was reported on in the popular press. This was 20 yrs ago, and again (as a dumb university student) i wasn't anticipating this discussion, but guess what, i do sort of recall numerous cases that lacked the clippings and also ones that bore similarity to my first anecdote above. And, I'm no Noam Chomsky, so i'm not going to do a content analysis to back up what i vaguely remember here ... but do you really think all this stuff percolates upward to the Press?
Now, i'll say that i spent my teen yrs in a town that serves a farming belt and had many friends who grew up on farms, and as an adult i've met many farmers who are humane and even ethical (albeit pragmatists). I'm also heartened by the emergence of ethical farming practices. So, i have no axe to grind aside from suggesting that farmers probably cover the same spectrum of population demographics you'd find in any industry, so i would neither mythologize nor demonize them.
Finally, no-one can speak to Zym's point better than Zym, but i didn't get the sense he suggested equivalence.
next morning edit: struck earlier reference to "1000's" of case files. Don't want to inflate numbers (it was a long time ago).
+++++++++
Omni-O, in two separate posts, you strongly associate PETA w/ the Foi Gras movement as though the latter has no relevance outside of PETA. Are you overstating the association, and if not, do you have professional or other insiders information? I ask b/c a quick visit to Wikipedia's page on Foi Gras reveals i) PETA is not the only well-known org that's taken this on as a cause, and, in fact, ii) several countries have introduced legislation.
Foi gras isn't my soapbox. I agree w/ the article's assertion there are bigger causes, and in 15 yrs of being a vegetarian, i've never been drawn into a Foi Gras debate. And, i don't think i will here, other than to suggest that for a lack of strong evidence that demonstrates an explicit association between PETA and the anti- "movement" its belittling to those who don't pledge allegiance to PETA (but who might take a stand against foi gras consumption). It puts you in a similar reductionist camp the article in question rails against.
And by belittling, i'm not suggesting that associations w/ PETA are necessarily evil. Whatever its beginnings, its evolved into a fairly sophisticated and perhaps even a mainstreamed organization / cause, and like all such entities, i'd guess (i lack your certainty, but i'll speculate) it serves as an umbrella to kooks and rationalists alike. What i might ask: is PETA too easy an org to demonize, somewhat similar to foie gras consumption? I mean, if they are sooooo irrational, how have they managed to mobilize so many people and influence the activities of various corporations?
i ask that with a certain naivete, not being too familiar w/ the org, but suspecting there's a bit of blame the messenger'ism involved. For all their faults, they've probably been good (effective) messengers for their cause, and (i'd guess) they've done / sponsored some of the hard work of uncovering some of the less than ethical practices in various sectors involving animal husbandry, etc.
Which brings me to my next point: I'm not exactly certain what to make of your visits to the farms and other operations, nor your assertion concerning those "rare" instances re. the discovery / reporting to authorities of inhumane treatment and their trumpeting in press.
Two anecdotes as counters: in high-school, i worked briefly (3-4 days) on a crew dispatched to a couple farms helping collect chickens--3 in one hand and 4 in the other, toss into a small pen and hand-off to the guys in the truck... that part didn't bother me as a desensitized, dumb (and carnivorous) teen. What did were the occasional acts of violence against the birds -- i witnessed more than one adult casually kick birds distances of 15 or 20 ft.
Several yrs later, late university, i took on a temp. job w/ a well-known (mainstream) org that works for the prevention of cruelty against animals. You can probably narrow down the field, but i won't name names (pm me, if you must). My job was to help collate and abstract 100's of case files, spanning a pretty lengthy period (and incl. other countries), ranging from "mundane" (e.g., slaughterhouses that failed to fix malfunctioning equip't) to less mundane, included both big, well known operations and many, fewer lesser known ones. Included in each case were press clippings, when the story was reported on in the popular press. This was 20 yrs ago, and again (as a dumb university student) i wasn't anticipating this discussion, but guess what, i do sort of recall numerous cases that lacked the clippings and also ones that bore similarity to my first anecdote above. And, I'm no Noam Chomsky, so i'm not going to do a content analysis to back up what i vaguely remember here ... but do you really think all this stuff percolates upward to the Press?
Now, i'll say that i spent my teen yrs in a town that serves a farming belt and had many friends who grew up on farms, and as an adult i've met many farmers who are humane and even ethical (albeit pragmatists). I'm also heartened by the emergence of ethical farming practices. So, i have no axe to grind aside from suggesting that farmers probably cover the same spectrum of population demographics you'd find in any industry, so i would neither mythologize nor demonize them.
Finally, no-one can speak to Zym's point better than Zym, but i didn't get the sense he suggested equivalence.
2009 Apr 9
Thanks posting this, Zym. I wish i had the foresight (or serendipity) to have found this a month earlier and posted it in place of my response above. Every post in 20 (or so), i ask "ugh, why did i press Post reply on that??" <- in the case above, a response a bit more polemical than intended. I stand by my earlier assertions (in theory, not tenor), but think that Dan Barber's talk raises questions, issues and examples that are more interesting than defending (or not) PETA, "traditional" foie gras practices, etc. Good find.
2009 Apr 13
I have been a long time viewer of this forum, but have never got involved in a debate until now. Ron Eade's statements (Omnivore Ottawa) are the reason I have stopped reading his blog or column. He seems blinded by the industry and truly unable to view certain types of animal agriculture as inhumane, even when it is glaringly so. He often resorts to name calling and his villain of choice is always PETA. Intrestingly enough, PETA has had very little to do with the foie gras campaigns in North America. HSUS, one of the most respected animal welfare groups in the world, has spearheaded the campaign against foie gras in North America. Using undercover investigations and expert testimony they have exposed the foie gras industry for the vile and inhumane production methods it uses. I can think of no better website to reveal these abuses than www.nofoiegras.org.
I am not vegetarian, but I strongly believe that animals should be treated humanely and with respect. I to have visited foie gras farms in Quebec and was horrified by what I witnessed. How Ron can state that these animals are not mistreated is beyond my understanding. I truly hope he does not own pets with that reasoning. I urge everyone to view videos take from the farms:
Ethics and humanity need to prevail in our kitchens. We cannot allow any type of abusive production methods exist simply because the end result is pleasing to our taste buds. Let's show some compassion folks. Some humanity. Foie gras is inhumane and cruel, and will personally never serve it or eat it. I also be sure to speak with the chef at any restaurant I am dining at that has foie gras on the menu.
I am not vegetarian, but I strongly believe that animals should be treated humanely and with respect. I to have visited foie gras farms in Quebec and was horrified by what I witnessed. How Ron can state that these animals are not mistreated is beyond my understanding. I truly hope he does not own pets with that reasoning. I urge everyone to view videos take from the farms:
Ethics and humanity need to prevail in our kitchens. We cannot allow any type of abusive production methods exist simply because the end result is pleasing to our taste buds. Let's show some compassion folks. Some humanity. Foie gras is inhumane and cruel, and will personally never serve it or eat it. I also be sure to speak with the chef at any restaurant I am dining at that has foie gras on the menu.
2009 Apr 13
I wasn't going to flog this again but since someone else did, I'll mention the video I got from the Ottawa Public Library called "Earthlings". If you really have the stomach to know where your meat comes from, I highly recommend it! What truly amazed me was how kosher meat really is not any more humane, even when it is supposed to be.
I was watching it yesterday with the boys (age 5 and 7), and about 10 minutes in I wanted to turn it off because I thought it might be too graphic for them. They forbade me completely! They were really gripped by it, and wanted to watch it to the very end. I tried my best to explain that this is why we deal primarily with local farmers whose production methods we are familiar with. Of course, the fly in the ointment is that all that meat goes to a common slaughterhouse anyway, and so the method of actual slaughter is not any better. Not sure what I can do about that other than stop eating meat (which I do intend to do at age 50 - 7 more years to go!)
I was watching it yesterday with the boys (age 5 and 7), and about 10 minutes in I wanted to turn it off because I thought it might be too graphic for them. They forbade me completely! They were really gripped by it, and wanted to watch it to the very end. I tried my best to explain that this is why we deal primarily with local farmers whose production methods we are familiar with. Of course, the fly in the ointment is that all that meat goes to a common slaughterhouse anyway, and so the method of actual slaughter is not any better. Not sure what I can do about that other than stop eating meat (which I do intend to do at age 50 - 7 more years to go!)
2009 May 13
"Perhaps it comes down to the definition of "inhumane". In my book, that means that if I saw it happening to a human, I would be outraged."
But Zym, it is not inhumane to eat an animal then? I mean, if you saw that happening to a human, you would be outraged , right?
Hahah. Sorry. I know that not what you mean, but I still found it funny.
I think at this point everyone on OF is aware that "old macdonld" doesn't exist. Or he does, but only in small local farms that you get your meat from. I wonder if I am the only one getting tired of your ..ahem..force-feed ideology. As you so eloquently said, we have a choice, to kill our neighbor, to eat factory farmed beef, to eat foie gras. Let people make their choices now. And let them be free to choose whatever choice they want. Not just the ones you want to cram down their throats.
PS, I see you facts, re: 1/5, but where are your sources? Is it a book??
But Zym, it is not inhumane to eat an animal then? I mean, if you saw that happening to a human, you would be outraged , right?
Hahah. Sorry. I know that not what you mean, but I still found it funny.
I think at this point everyone on OF is aware that "old macdonld" doesn't exist. Or he does, but only in small local farms that you get your meat from. I wonder if I am the only one getting tired of your ..ahem..force-feed ideology. As you so eloquently said, we have a choice, to kill our neighbor, to eat factory farmed beef, to eat foie gras. Let people make their choices now. And let them be free to choose whatever choice they want. Not just the ones you want to cram down their throats.
PS, I see you facts, re: 1/5, but where are your sources? Is it a book??
2009 May 13
J-B, i'm staying out of the foie gras debate (aside from my responses above), and i'm not going to cite sources on behalf of Zym, but here's a fairly straightforward (lay-person's) overview on energy expenditures.
www.sustainabletable.org
Obviously, the coverage come w/ a point of view, but i'm just providing the source as a start-here in case you're asking out of curiosity or an interest in the different inputs/outputs. If the above doesn't satisfy your needs (perhaps you prefer more scientific / primary source materials?), you could google for 'em, or visit a library with access to agricultural / ecological databases (e.g., ones that index or provide access to material not available via google). U of O might be a good place, and they'd likely have a couple print journals, as well.
Some of this sort of research can also be found in older ethnographic / anthropological / ecological research studies, particularly those that compared energy expenditures per protein capture across different agricultural regimes / population groups. (i can't, for a lack of time, locate / cite those sources.)
Zym seems like a fairly hands-on guy w/ a background (i think?) both in philosophy and comp. sci.: in other words, he's probably comfortable crunching his own numbers (aggregated and extrapolated from DFASM ... yes, a book, by the way). I'm sure he'd be the first to admit there's some imprecision in that sort of exercise: the inter-relationships are incredible complex, but sometimes imprecision is all (or the best) we have when formulating opinions.
If you have sources to counter or refine what he's suggesting, we'll all benefit from them, particularly if you can summarize in a manner that makes sense to us lay-people.
www.sustainabletable.org
Obviously, the coverage come w/ a point of view, but i'm just providing the source as a start-here in case you're asking out of curiosity or an interest in the different inputs/outputs. If the above doesn't satisfy your needs (perhaps you prefer more scientific / primary source materials?), you could google for 'em, or visit a library with access to agricultural / ecological databases (e.g., ones that index or provide access to material not available via google). U of O might be a good place, and they'd likely have a couple print journals, as well.
Some of this sort of research can also be found in older ethnographic / anthropological / ecological research studies, particularly those that compared energy expenditures per protein capture across different agricultural regimes / population groups. (i can't, for a lack of time, locate / cite those sources.)
Zym seems like a fairly hands-on guy w/ a background (i think?) both in philosophy and comp. sci.: in other words, he's probably comfortable crunching his own numbers (aggregated and extrapolated from DFASM ... yes, a book, by the way). I'm sure he'd be the first to admit there's some imprecision in that sort of exercise: the inter-relationships are incredible complex, but sometimes imprecision is all (or the best) we have when formulating opinions.
If you have sources to counter or refine what he's suggesting, we'll all benefit from them, particularly if you can summarize in a manner that makes sense to us lay-people.
2009 May 13
Thanks Itchy feet. I have personally read books (non-fiction) that try to prove that the us government is a reptile race of aliens from the 4th dimension.That said, I wanted some sources of Zym's figures that I could read and make my own decisions on, and not just his thoughts on a single book.
I am all for small local farms, no doubt about that. I just wonder, if like stated this is so sustainable and more efficient than why is it not the norm, instead of the other way around? I will read the above posted link, again I suspect the problem will come down to land, and the demand of beef.
BTW came across a post the other day about mcdonalds importing beef from south american. Something about not having enough in the US.
Oh, and I was thinking, I imagine a big fat cat like mcdonalds doesnt deal with a middleman. Is it possible they have there own cattle farms? Couldn't find any info, but it would make sense to me.
I am all for small local farms, no doubt about that. I just wonder, if like stated this is so sustainable and more efficient than why is it not the norm, instead of the other way around? I will read the above posted link, again I suspect the problem will come down to land, and the demand of beef.
BTW came across a post the other day about mcdonalds importing beef from south american. Something about not having enough in the US.
Oh, and I was thinking, I imagine a big fat cat like mcdonalds doesnt deal with a middleman. Is it possible they have there own cattle farms? Couldn't find any info, but it would make sense to me.
2009 May 13
Diet for a Small Planet is the book I was referring to. The website linked above provides similar figures in the same ballpark, and cites more references to studies at respected universities.
Why is it not the norm? It is not the norm because Big Business rules, and government caters to them. It really is that simple. Big Agra is Big Bucks. Billions of dollars a year in profit. They have the government's ear. Look at how the government - both Liberal and Tory - has been moving the last couple of decades to let places like Maple Leaf do their own inspections.
I don't recall the deal on McDonald's. Though sometimes there are benefits to having a middleman. Look at how car manufacturers don't manufacture a lot of their own car parts.
Why is it not the norm? It is not the norm because Big Business rules, and government caters to them. It really is that simple. Big Agra is Big Bucks. Billions of dollars a year in profit. They have the government's ear. Look at how the government - both Liberal and Tory - has been moving the last couple of decades to let places like Maple Leaf do their own inspections.
I don't recall the deal on McDonald's. Though sometimes there are benefits to having a middleman. Look at how car manufacturers don't manufacture a lot of their own car parts.
2009 May 13
ZYM, I highly doubt we will see any change in that.
So even if this is more efficient, is must be much more expensive. More expensive meat would equal not everyone being able to afford it. And likely a whole lot less meat to go around. I think a lot of our meat is pretty darn cheap, and in exchange for an animals life is probably should be more expensive. Maybe then we would be less likely to waste. Thing is though, you plan (or rather DfaSP's plan) is not gonna happen.
So next best thing is to just support our small locals farms. But since this is not possible for each and everyone of us, don't be surprised if some people want to keep their blindfolds on.
If you really want to get into it, there are a whole slew of things we first world country inhabitants turn a blind eye to. Want to go shop at the GAP? I think the treatment of child labor is truly inhumane. But good luck gettin' your hand on some affordable Canadian made clothing. The world is not fair. And not easy to change. It's pretty understandable why most people are "willfully ignorant."
So even if this is more efficient, is must be much more expensive. More expensive meat would equal not everyone being able to afford it. And likely a whole lot less meat to go around. I think a lot of our meat is pretty darn cheap, and in exchange for an animals life is probably should be more expensive. Maybe then we would be less likely to waste. Thing is though, you plan (or rather DfaSP's plan) is not gonna happen.
So next best thing is to just support our small locals farms. But since this is not possible for each and everyone of us, don't be surprised if some people want to keep their blindfolds on.
If you really want to get into it, there are a whole slew of things we first world country inhabitants turn a blind eye to. Want to go shop at the GAP? I think the treatment of child labor is truly inhumane. But good luck gettin' your hand on some affordable Canadian made clothing. The world is not fair. And not easy to change. It's pretty understandable why most people are "willfully ignorant."
2009 May 13
Jane-Buck, your assumption is invalid. Sure, some ethical, organic meat is more expensive but only because "that's what the market will bear". One of the farmers I deal with is cheaper than supermarket meat. I know other farmers who are even cheaper still.
How can it be?
Well, agri business makes ENORMOUS profits. Ones like Cargill make a billion dollars a year or close to it in PROFIT. And it goes to shareholders who have nothing whatsoever to do with the production of that meat. They sit on their fat a$$es.
So you take that billion dollars and spread it around to small farmers, and you'll find that even though they are more labour intensive, they can produce the stuff for the same end cost to the consumer. But instead of a handful of fat cats getting filthy rich for sitting on their asses, you now have a whole bunch of honest, hard-working farmers making a decent living for their families.
How can it be?
Well, agri business makes ENORMOUS profits. Ones like Cargill make a billion dollars a year or close to it in PROFIT. And it goes to shareholders who have nothing whatsoever to do with the production of that meat. They sit on their fat a$$es.
So you take that billion dollars and spread it around to small farmers, and you'll find that even though they are more labour intensive, they can produce the stuff for the same end cost to the consumer. But instead of a handful of fat cats getting filthy rich for sitting on their asses, you now have a whole bunch of honest, hard-working farmers making a decent living for their families.
2009 May 13
Zym, all of the local and well-treated meat I have ever seen for sale has been more expensive than the grocery store meat. Where do you buy yours from? where can I get it? If you want everyone eating this humane meat, tell us where it's at! I get my meat from sasloves, it's way more expensive (but way better) than grocery store meat.
It would seem to me that in all markets, when something is mass produced it is cheaper to the consumer.
I can't understand how a small farmer could compete with a mass producing giant.
As far as profits and such go...We live in a capitalist society. Are you suggesting-gasp- communism?!
It would seem to me that in all markets, when something is mass produced it is cheaper to the consumer.
I can't understand how a small farmer could compete with a mass producing giant.
As far as profits and such go...We live in a capitalist society. Are you suggesting-gasp- communism?!
2009 May 13
I've already posted a link to one of my farmers. You can PM me if you want more contacts. You save a lot of money by cutting out all the middle men.
As for our so-called capitalist society - it looks to be to be pretty enormously broken right now. And not very "capitalist" given the massive amount of taxpayer dollars required to bail out banks, auto makers and so on down the line.
And see this old post of mine as well : ottawafoodies.com
I think 100 years from now we'll look back on for-profit food the same way we Canadians now look back at for-profit health care. Canadians get pretty emotional about their public health care, and if you ask them why most answers boil down to something like "it is just what you do in a civilized society". Yet eating is far more basic a need than health care, and we don't seem to mind companies making billions of dollars profit a year off the basic human need to eat. That will change the same as attitudes toward health care did
And I do hope you were joking with your "communism" comment, or should we start calling you Ms McArthy?
As for our so-called capitalist society - it looks to be to be pretty enormously broken right now. And not very "capitalist" given the massive amount of taxpayer dollars required to bail out banks, auto makers and so on down the line.
And see this old post of mine as well : ottawafoodies.com
I think 100 years from now we'll look back on for-profit food the same way we Canadians now look back at for-profit health care. Canadians get pretty emotional about their public health care, and if you ask them why most answers boil down to something like "it is just what you do in a civilized society". Yet eating is far more basic a need than health care, and we don't seem to mind companies making billions of dollars profit a year off the basic human need to eat. That will change the same as attitudes toward health care did
And I do hope you were joking with your "communism" comment, or should we start calling you Ms McArthy?
2009 May 13
JB & Zym - the downside to the locally sourced meats is that the butchering quality isn't as high, at least, in my experience. I've taken to buying larger cuts to break them down, bought a meat grinder to grind my own meat, etc. Also, I do find the marbling to be less (ie, leaner) in the locally sourced beef.
2009 May 13
Zym, of course the commie comment was a joke.
I suppose you could also say that shelter is a basic need, and clothing. Joking aside, it really does sound like a socialist society is what you would prefer. If it worked,I would not be totally opposed either.
If you wanna get into another debate, I have some thoughts about the bail outs that I'm sure oppose yours.
And if you dont mind could you please pm me the name of your farm?
I suppose you could also say that shelter is a basic need, and clothing. Joking aside, it really does sound like a socialist society is what you would prefer. If it worked,I would not be totally opposed either.
If you wanna get into another debate, I have some thoughts about the bail outs that I'm sure oppose yours.
And if you dont mind could you please pm me the name of your farm?
2009 May 14
Coincidentally, just before switching over to read this, I read this article from the NY Time about Norway. I'll post it all here because NY Times requires a login.
BTW, if you are in favour of the bailouts, then you are in favour of Socialism. So, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
www.nytimes.com
OSLO — When capitalism seemed on the verge of collapse last fall, Kristin Halvorsen, Norway’s Socialist finance minister and a longtime free market skeptic, did more than crow.
As investors the world over sold in a panic, she bucked the tide, authorizing Norway’s $300 billion sovereign wealth fund to ramp up its stock buying program by $60 billion — or about 23 percent of Norway’s economic output.
“The timing was not that bad,” Ms. Halvorsen said, smiling with satisfaction over the broad worldwide market rally that began in early March.
The global financial crisis has brought low the economies of just about every country on earth. But not Norway.
With a quirky contrariness as deeply etched in the national character as the fjords carved into its rugged landscape, Norway has thrived by going its own way. When others splurged, it saved. When others sought to limit the role of government, Norway strengthened its cradle-to-grave welfare state.
And in the midst of the worst global downturn since the Depression, Norway’s economy grew last year by just under 3 percent. The government enjoys a budget surplus of 11 percent and its ledger is entirely free of debt.
By comparison, the United States is expected to chalk up a fiscal deficit this year equal to 12.9 percent of its gross domestic product and push its total debt to $11 trillion, or 65 percent of the size of its economy.
Norway is a relatively small country with a largely homogeneous population of 4.6 million and the advantages of being a major oil exporter. It counted $68 billion in oil revenue last year as prices soared to record levels. Even though prices have sharply declined, the government is not particularly worried. That is because Norway avoided the usual trap that plagues many energy-rich countries.
Instead of spending its riches lavishly, it passed legislation ensuring that oil revenue went straight into its sovereign wealth fund, state money that is used to make investments around the world. Now its sovereign wealth fund is close to being the largest in the world, despite losing 23 percent last year because of investments that declined.
Norway’s relative frugality stands in stark contrast to Britain, which spent most of its North Sea oil revenue — and more — during the boom years. Government spending rose to 47 percent of G.D.P., from 42 percent in 2003. By comparison, public spending in Norway fell to 40 percent from 48 percent of G.D.P.
“The U.S. and the U.K. have no sense of guilt,” said Anders Aslund, an expert on Scandinavia at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington. “But in Norway, there is instead a sense of virtue. If you are given a lot, you have a responsibility.”
Eirik Wekre, an economist who writes thrillers in his spare time, describes Norwegians’ feelings about debt this way: “We cannot spend this money now; it would be stealing from future generations.”
Mr. Wekre, who paid for his house and car with cash, attributes this broad consensus to as the country’s iconoclasm. “The strongest man is he who stands alone in the world,” he said, quoting Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen.
Still, even Ibsen might concede that it is easier to stand alone when your nation has benefited from oil reserves that make it the third-largest exporter in the world. The money flowing from that black gold since the early 1970s has prompted even the flintiest of Norwegians to relax and enjoy their good fortune. The country’s G.D.P. per person is $52,000, behind only Luxembourg among industrial democracies.
As in much of the rest of the world home prices have soared here, tripling this decade. But there has been no real estate crash in Norway because there were few mortgage lending excesses. After a 15 percent correction, prices are again on the rise.
Unlike Dublin or Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where work has stopped on half-built skyscrapers and stilled cranes dot the skylines, Oslo retains a feeling of modesty reminiscent of a fishing village rather than a Western capital, with the recently opened $800 million Opera House one of the few signs of opulence.
Norwegian banks, said Arne J. Isachsen, an economist at the Norwegian School of Management, remain largely healthy and prudent in their lending. Banks represent just 2 percent of the economy and tight public oversight over their lending practices have kept Norwegian banks from taking on the risk that brought down their Icelandic counterparts. But they certainly have not closed their doors to borrowers. Mr. Isachsen, like many in Norway, has a second home and an open credit line from his bank, which he recently used to buy a new boat.
Some here worry that while a cabin in the woods and a boat may not approach the excesses seen in New York or London, oil wealth and the state largesse have corrupted Norway’s once-sturdy work ethic.
“This is an oil-for-leisure program,” said Knut Anton Mork, an economist at Handelsbanken in Oslo. A recent study, he pointed out, found that Norwegians work the fewest hours of the citizens of any industrial democracy.
“We have become complacent,” Mr. Mork added. “More and more vacation houses are being built. We have more holidays than most countries and extremely generous benefits and sick leave policies. Some day the dream will end.”
But that day is far off. For now, the air is clear, work is plentiful and the government’s helping hand is omnipresent — even for those on the margins.
Just around the corner from Norway’s central bank, for instance, Paul Bruum takes a needle full of amphetamines and jabs it into his muscular arm. His scabs and sores betray many years as a heroin addict. He says that the $1,500 he gets from the government each month is enough to keep him well-fed and supplied with drugs.
Mr. Bruum, 32, says he has never had a job, and he admits he is no position to find one. “I don’t blame anyone,” he said. “The Norwegian government has provided for me the best they can.”
To Ms. Halvorsen, the finance minister, even the underside of the Norwegian dream looks pretty good compared to the economic nightmares elsewhere.
“As a socialist, I have always said that the market can’t regulate itself,” she said. “But even I was surprised how strong the failure was.”
BTW, if you are in favour of the bailouts, then you are in favour of Socialism. So, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
www.nytimes.com
OSLO — When capitalism seemed on the verge of collapse last fall, Kristin Halvorsen, Norway’s Socialist finance minister and a longtime free market skeptic, did more than crow.
As investors the world over sold in a panic, she bucked the tide, authorizing Norway’s $300 billion sovereign wealth fund to ramp up its stock buying program by $60 billion — or about 23 percent of Norway’s economic output.
“The timing was not that bad,” Ms. Halvorsen said, smiling with satisfaction over the broad worldwide market rally that began in early March.
The global financial crisis has brought low the economies of just about every country on earth. But not Norway.
With a quirky contrariness as deeply etched in the national character as the fjords carved into its rugged landscape, Norway has thrived by going its own way. When others splurged, it saved. When others sought to limit the role of government, Norway strengthened its cradle-to-grave welfare state.
And in the midst of the worst global downturn since the Depression, Norway’s economy grew last year by just under 3 percent. The government enjoys a budget surplus of 11 percent and its ledger is entirely free of debt.
By comparison, the United States is expected to chalk up a fiscal deficit this year equal to 12.9 percent of its gross domestic product and push its total debt to $11 trillion, or 65 percent of the size of its economy.
Norway is a relatively small country with a largely homogeneous population of 4.6 million and the advantages of being a major oil exporter. It counted $68 billion in oil revenue last year as prices soared to record levels. Even though prices have sharply declined, the government is not particularly worried. That is because Norway avoided the usual trap that plagues many energy-rich countries.
Instead of spending its riches lavishly, it passed legislation ensuring that oil revenue went straight into its sovereign wealth fund, state money that is used to make investments around the world. Now its sovereign wealth fund is close to being the largest in the world, despite losing 23 percent last year because of investments that declined.
Norway’s relative frugality stands in stark contrast to Britain, which spent most of its North Sea oil revenue — and more — during the boom years. Government spending rose to 47 percent of G.D.P., from 42 percent in 2003. By comparison, public spending in Norway fell to 40 percent from 48 percent of G.D.P.
“The U.S. and the U.K. have no sense of guilt,” said Anders Aslund, an expert on Scandinavia at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington. “But in Norway, there is instead a sense of virtue. If you are given a lot, you have a responsibility.”
Eirik Wekre, an economist who writes thrillers in his spare time, describes Norwegians’ feelings about debt this way: “We cannot spend this money now; it would be stealing from future generations.”
Mr. Wekre, who paid for his house and car with cash, attributes this broad consensus to as the country’s iconoclasm. “The strongest man is he who stands alone in the world,” he said, quoting Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen.
Still, even Ibsen might concede that it is easier to stand alone when your nation has benefited from oil reserves that make it the third-largest exporter in the world. The money flowing from that black gold since the early 1970s has prompted even the flintiest of Norwegians to relax and enjoy their good fortune. The country’s G.D.P. per person is $52,000, behind only Luxembourg among industrial democracies.
As in much of the rest of the world home prices have soared here, tripling this decade. But there has been no real estate crash in Norway because there were few mortgage lending excesses. After a 15 percent correction, prices are again on the rise.
Unlike Dublin or Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where work has stopped on half-built skyscrapers and stilled cranes dot the skylines, Oslo retains a feeling of modesty reminiscent of a fishing village rather than a Western capital, with the recently opened $800 million Opera House one of the few signs of opulence.
Norwegian banks, said Arne J. Isachsen, an economist at the Norwegian School of Management, remain largely healthy and prudent in their lending. Banks represent just 2 percent of the economy and tight public oversight over their lending practices have kept Norwegian banks from taking on the risk that brought down their Icelandic counterparts. But they certainly have not closed their doors to borrowers. Mr. Isachsen, like many in Norway, has a second home and an open credit line from his bank, which he recently used to buy a new boat.
Some here worry that while a cabin in the woods and a boat may not approach the excesses seen in New York or London, oil wealth and the state largesse have corrupted Norway’s once-sturdy work ethic.
“This is an oil-for-leisure program,” said Knut Anton Mork, an economist at Handelsbanken in Oslo. A recent study, he pointed out, found that Norwegians work the fewest hours of the citizens of any industrial democracy.
“We have become complacent,” Mr. Mork added. “More and more vacation houses are being built. We have more holidays than most countries and extremely generous benefits and sick leave policies. Some day the dream will end.”
But that day is far off. For now, the air is clear, work is plentiful and the government’s helping hand is omnipresent — even for those on the margins.
Just around the corner from Norway’s central bank, for instance, Paul Bruum takes a needle full of amphetamines and jabs it into his muscular arm. His scabs and sores betray many years as a heroin addict. He says that the $1,500 he gets from the government each month is enough to keep him well-fed and supplied with drugs.
Mr. Bruum, 32, says he has never had a job, and he admits he is no position to find one. “I don’t blame anyone,” he said. “The Norwegian government has provided for me the best they can.”
To Ms. Halvorsen, the finance minister, even the underside of the Norwegian dream looks pretty good compared to the economic nightmares elsewhere.
“As a socialist, I have always said that the market can’t regulate itself,” she said. “But even I was surprised how strong the failure was.”
2009 May 14
"If it worked,I would not be totally opposed either."
As I stated, I am not totally opposed to socialism. But the bailouts, I don't really believe are socialism. If the companies are not bailed out we will pay way way more in EI to the people who lose their jobs. It just makes sense. Its practically capitalism.
As I stated, I am not totally opposed to socialism. But the bailouts, I don't really believe are socialism. If the companies are not bailed out we will pay way way more in EI to the people who lose their jobs. It just makes sense. Its practically capitalism.
2009 May 14
An author edited essay written by someone with an inherent interest is not generally considered an article; those are written by what we call journalists, a profession you perhaps not be familiar with.
By and large these are not people like restaurateurs who can be more expected to write op-eds or columns. Please, don't feel the need to run off and google "articles" to justify your point. Your position is as well known to me as your inability to understand my point when I comment on people calling for actions from state actors and really I've seen enough of your mastery of the "copy paste"
This essay which I already commented on in the other thread is by far and away one of the most polemical and biased essays I've read since I studied the Indian wars and Manifest Destiny, but that is just how you like it right?
By and large these are not people like restaurateurs who can be more expected to write op-eds or columns. Please, don't feel the need to run off and google "articles" to justify your point. Your position is as well known to me as your inability to understand my point when I comment on people calling for actions from state actors and really I've seen enough of your mastery of the "copy paste"
This essay which I already commented on in the other thread is by far and away one of the most polemical and biased essays I've read since I studied the Indian wars and Manifest Destiny, but that is just how you like it right?
2009 May 14
Jane-Buck, if you think the bailouts are not Socialism then it is clear that you already have drawn your conclusion and you are going to interpret the facts in whatever way you can so that you continue to get that conclusion. Honestly, this is 1984 "newspeak" I am hearing. Bad is good and so on. The facts say one thing, but you are saying precisely the opposite.
2009 May 14
Zym, if you think its socialism, fine. I don't claim to be an expect in politics. As stated I don't have a problem with socialism.
Beside, none of this has anything to do with Foie Gras!
Could you please PM me the names of the farms you were talking about. I don't understand why you want to keep them a secret??
Beside, none of this has anything to do with Foie Gras!
Could you please PM me the names of the farms you were talking about. I don't understand why you want to keep them a secret??
medicinejar
Here is the link:
www.incanto.biz