Sanders, Warren, Booker sponsor bill to ban factory farming by 2040

[SevenEleven]

Not sure how you raise fats then and not massively jack up prices to the point that hamburger meat is out of reach for fast food restaurants and many working poor.

Eating meat is a choice, first of all. The cost of meat is not nearly as affective as the cost of energy. Of course, we do need to take measures with energy to fight climate change as well, but this is a reasonable solution as far as affecting poor people is concerned. Energy costs affect much more facets of our lives, including the cost of meat (transportation, feed, etc).

Maybe less meat and fast food consumption would be good for the poor, and every other American. So what if last night's dinner of a 16 oz NY steak with shallot wine sauce, lyonnaise potatoes and sauteed kale might cost me $13 to cook instead of $10? We are talking about saving the goddamn planet here!

Two packs of chicken legs, a bag of rice, some spinach, a box of oatmeal and a dozen eggs will feed a family of four for a week for about $20 currently. If that goes to $24, that is not devastating to the poor.

three things:
1.why don't we let poor people decide what they want to eat?  No, they're not always going to make decisions you (or I) agree with, but what are you going to do, make all important decisions for them?  I think that's been tried before, it never turns out well.
2.if someone suggested SNAP benefits for a family of 4 should be limited to $24/week (because hey, they can be well fed at half that price if they just ate beans!) you'd (correctly) freak the hell out.
3.humans are omnivores, eating meat is natural.  NOT eating meat is the choice.

1. We do, I support that and other supplemental nutrition programs. I don't think you should be able to buy Doritos or Oreos with SNAP. I think the expansion of school lunch availability is also something to take into consideration. It's been prevalent throughout the pandemic even as school itself wasn't. Programs like WIC limit food choice. The predecessor was an actual food basket. If we really want to help poor people, we will try to provide nutritious foods for them.

2. That's fair enough, but with my overall point being that it's easy to feed a family cheaply, I won't stand for you calling me elitist or anti-poor. Anyone who has been poor understands the value of sacrifice, and those who understand it well enough eventually won't be poor, barring extremely poor luck. Yeah, you grow up not eating the best foods and not having nice sneakers. I've been through that.

3. The choice isn't black or white as right wingers always insist. Yeah, you can choose to be vegan or vegetarian or even a carnivore. You also don't have to eat loads of meat for every meal. You're acting as if I don't care about the poor, when in actuality this would affect me as well, and might change my spending habits. That doesn't have to be a bad thing; I'd suggest it's a good thing really.

[All Along The Watchtower]

oh, cool to see this perfectly reasonable bill being attacked on Culture War grounds

[Bismarck]

oh, cool to see this perfectly reasonable bill being attacked on Culture War grounds

A bill that would destroy the livelihoods of thousands of families and fundamentally alter Americans diets is reasonable?

[GP270watch]

Americans: Trying to progress and adapt to a changing world.


Conservatives:

[S019]

oh, cool to see this perfectly reasonable bill being attacked on Culture War grounds

A bill that would destroy the livelihoods of thousands of families and fundamentally alter Americans diets is reasonable?

Sigh, factory farming helps literally no one except large scale corporate farms, who have basically outcompeted family farms, to the point that they're dying. This wouldn't even destroy their livelihoods, these corporations are wealthy enough that they'll just move to another country. However, if they do leave, family farms can actually become relevant again.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Fwiw the argument from grocery bills is a better one than the idea this would really damage rural life - in general, rural communities have not really benefited from the increased intensification of agriculture, and even farmers who "win" are massively indebted and in the red without subsidy. I assume Bernie Sanders, who represents a poor state filled with dairy farmers (who are especially screwed over by the current situation) is more aware of the situation than exurban Republic teens (the idea that your average republican has a greater understanding of how modern agriculture than effette urban soyboys is a dubious one).

[Stranger in a strange land]

I had expected (and indeed hoped) that something like this would be an outcome of the current crisis: it's hypocritical to complain about Chinese wet markets while supporting comparable practices at home.

[Figueira]

This is a good idea in general, but probably needs to be ironed out to decide exactly what counts as a factory farm.

But you have to be a sociopath to not support addressing this issue at all.

[John Dule]

The alternative to having large farms is importing meat.

The easy solution to that is ban that too

This, meat agriculture contributes far more to climate change than people are willing to acknowledge

Also why are people so upset over the animal treatment itself?
It’s not like they are human.

We should worry more about antibiotic resistance and environmental impacts than how some pigs feel.

Sorry, if I sound rude, but this sounds extremely sadistic. (note bolded parts)

If improving the standard of living of an animal comes at even a slight expense to human standards of living, there's no reason to implement that change.

[Bismarck]

oh, cool to see this perfectly reasonable bill being attacked on Culture War grounds

A bill that would destroy the livelihoods of thousands of families and fundamentally alter Americans diets is reasonable?

Sigh, factory farming helps literally no one except large scale corporate farms, who have basically outcompeted family farms, to the point that they're dying. This wouldn't even destroy their livelihoods, these corporations are wealthy enough that they'll just move to another country. However, if they do leave, family farms can actually become relevant again.

Again see my previous posts. You’re swalloing propaganda from animal rights groups. I grew up in a town where several family farms operate CFOs, what you are calling factory farms. Two of these families own their animals and focus on production of young pigs for sale to finishers and the third family raises hogs in contract with a regional farmers cooperative. These are middle class families that have farmed in my county for many generations. Other farmers in the area (again all families, some of then are incorporated for tax purposes but it’s like a guy and his nephew or something) depend on the presence of livestock in the region to sell their grain to. You will not help farmers by doing this. You will devestate rural communities. I am not in the livestock industry my self but have a degree in agriculture and as such know many people in this industry or who come from farm backgrounds. If you think banning modern agriculture would lead to a renneissance of story book charlottes web farms you are out of your mind.

[S019]

oh, cool to see this perfectly reasonable bill being attacked on Culture War grounds

A bill that would destroy the livelihoods of thousands of families and fundamentally alter Americans diets is reasonable?

Sigh, factory farming helps literally no one except large scale corporate farms, who have basically outcompeted family farms, to the point that they're dying. This wouldn't even destroy their livelihoods, these corporations are wealthy enough that they'll just move to another country. However, if they do leave, family farms can actually become relevant again.

Again see my previous posts. You’re swalloing propaganda from animal rights groups. I grew up in a town where several family farms operate CFOs, what you are calling factory farms. Two of these families own their animals and focus on production of young pigs for sale to finishers and the third family raises hogs in contract with a regional farmers cooperative. These are middle class families that have farmed in my county for many generations. Other farmers in the area (again all families, some of then are incorporated for tax purposes but it’s like a guy and his nephew or something) depend on the presence of livestock in the region to sell their grain to. You will not help farmers by doing this. You will devestate rural communities. I am not in the livestock industry my self but have a degree in agriculture and as such know many people in this industry or who come from farm backgrounds. If you think banning modern agriculture would lead to a renneissance of story book charlottes web farms you are out of your mind.

Sigh


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_animal_farming

"To achieve this, agribusinesses keep livestock such as cattle, poultry, and fish at high stocking densities, at large scale, and using modern machinery, biotechnology, and global trade. The main products of this industry are meat, milk and eggs for human consumption. There are issues regarding whether intensive animal farming is sustainable or ethical".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_farming

"Corporate farming is the practice of large-scale agriculture on farms owned or greatly influenced by large companies. This includes corporate ownership of farms and selling of agricultural products, as well as the roles of these companies in influencing agricultural education, research, and public policy through funding initiatives and lobbying efforts."

But sure, this totally helps small-scale producer and doesn't benefit large scale agriculture companies...

[Bismarck]

oh, cool to see this perfectly reasonable bill being attacked on Culture War grounds

A bill that would destroy the livelihoods of thousands of families and fundamentally alter Americans diets is reasonable?

Sigh, factory farming helps literally no one except large scale corporate farms, who have basically outcompeted family farms, to the point that they're dying. This wouldn't even destroy their livelihoods, these corporations are wealthy enough that they'll just move to another country. However, if they do leave, family farms can actually become relevant again.

Again see my previous posts. You’re swalloing propaganda from animal rights groups. I grew up in a town where several family farms operate CFOs, what you are calling factory farms. Two of these families own their animals and focus on production of young pigs for sale to finishers and the third family raises hogs in contract with a regional farmers cooperative. These are middle class families that have farmed in my county for many generations. Other farmers in the area (again all families, some of then are incorporated for tax purposes but it’s like a guy and his nephew or something) depend on the presence of livestock in the region to sell their grain to. You will not help farmers by doing this. You will devestate rural communities. I am not in the livestock industry my self but have a degree in agriculture and as such know many people in this industry or who come from farm backgrounds. If you think banning modern agriculture would lead to a renneissance of story book charlottes web farms you are out of your mind.

Sigh


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_animal_farming

"To achieve this, agribusinesses keep livestock such as cattle, poultry, and fish at high stocking densities, at large scale, and using modern machinery, biotechnology, and global trade. The main products of this industry are meat, milk and eggs for human consumption. There are issues regarding whether intensive animal farming is sustainable or ethical".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_farming

"Corporate farming is the practice of large-scale agriculture on farms owned or greatly influenced by large companies. This includes corporate ownership of farms and selling of agricultural products, as well as the roles of these companies in influencing agricultural education, research, and public policy through funding initiatives and lobbying efforts."

But sure, this totally helps small-scale producer and doesn't benefit large scale agriculture companies...

Yeah, telling John and his son Dave (again actual people I know, not scary loaded terms from a wiki article) they have to go out of business after four generations of hog farming is really going to stick it to big ag. If anything you just eliminate what’s left of family livestock farms by doing this and the big ag companies just move production to Brazil or China.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Also why are people so upset over the animal treatment itself?
It’s not like they are human.

We should worry more about antibiotic resistance and environmental impacts than how some pigs feel.

SOMEBODY HOLD ME BACK!

I'm slightly exaggerating but I had a pet pig and most people don't realize how intelligent and full of personality they are. They became my favorite animals after owning one. They aren't just food to me. I don't eat pork, and rarely any other kind of meat actually, for that obvious reason and wish others wouldn't, but I get that it's difficult to alter entire diets and industries over my personal sympathies. I mean, eating meat is a natural function in nature, I am not inherently anti-meat, but carnivores in the wild don't put their prey in gestation crates and make their life, no matter how short, more miserable than it needs to be before they're slaughtered.

Call me a pansy all you want, but I just feel like animals should be given at least a little more dignity for ethical reasons before they are made to serve their purpose, at least until plant-based foods or meat derived from cells becomes mainstream and change the entire meat industry as we know it.

[It’s so Joever]

Also why are people so upset over the animal treatment itself?
It’s not like they are human.

We should worry more about antibiotic resistance and environmental impacts than how some pigs feel.

SOMEBODY HOLD ME BACK!

I'm slightly exaggerating but I had a pet pig and most people don't realize how intelligent and full of personality they are. They became my favorite animals after owning one. They aren't just food to me. I don't eat pork, and rarely any other kind of meat actually, for that obvious reason and wish others wouldn't, but I get that it's difficult to alter entire diets and industries over my personal sympathies. I mean, eating meat is a natural function in nature, I am not inherently anti-meat, but carnivores in the wild don't put their prey in gestation crates and make their life, no matter how short, more miserable than it needs to be before they're slaughtered.

Call me a pansy all you want, but I just feel like animals should be given at least a little more dignity for ethical reasons before they are made to serve their purpose, at least until plant-based foods or meat derived from cells becomes mainstream and change the entire meat industry as we know it.

I know pigs are intelligent. More intelligent than dogs in many ways.
I have no moral qualms about any non-endangered being consumed/farmed. I also think if their suffering benefits humans, it’s worth it.
I just don’t think animal feelings triumph over human benefit.

It is very anthropocentric, yes, but those are just my personal values.

I don’t want our current system of farming due to other reasons anyways, I just don’t put much thought into how the animals feel.
We shouldn’t actively desire to increase the suffering of animals, but it is a cost we should accept if it benefits humanity.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

If improving the standard of living of an animal comes at even a slight expense to human standards of living, there's no reason to implement that change.

I really want to f#ck a dog.  Why should some dog's standard of living come at the expense of my raging boner?

[John Dule]

If improving the standard of living of an animal comes at even a slight expense to human standards of living, there's no reason to implement that change.

I really want to f#ck a dog.  Why should some dog's standard of living come at the expense of my raging boner?

Ejaculation, unlike access to affordable and healthy food, is not directly related to one's standard of living.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

If improving the standard of living of an animal comes at even a slight expense to human standards of living, there's no reason to implement that change.

I really want to f#ck a dog.  Why should some dog's standard of living come at the expense of my raging boner?

Ejaculation, unlike access to affordable and healthy food, is not directly related to one's standard of living.

You can get both those things without eating meat.

I am not a vegan/vegetarian and I do not believe that animals and humans are entitled to the same rights, but you are setting a very cruel standard by disregarding the animals' welfare completely.

[Santander]

If improving the standard of living of an animal comes at even a slight expense to human standards of living, there's no reason to implement that change.

I really want to f#ck a dog.  Why should some dog's standard of living come at the expense of my raging boner?

Ejaculation, unlike access to affordable and healthy food, is not directly related to one's standard of living.

Not having easy access to quality meat and dairy because of the disgraceful state of American agriculture is directly related to standard of living. (not saying this is a uniquely American problem, but that's what we're talking about here)

[John Dule]

If improving the standard of living of an animal comes at even a slight expense to human standards of living, there's no reason to implement that change.

I really want to f#ck a dog.  Why should some dog's standard of living come at the expense of my raging boner?

Ejaculation, unlike access to affordable and healthy food, is not directly related to one's standard of living.

You can get both those things without eating meat.

I am not a vegan/vegetarian and I do not believe that animals and humans are entitled to the same rights, but you are setting a very cruel standard by disregarding the animals' welfare completely.

I'm not disregarding animal welfare at all. I'm just acknowledging the simple fact that, as humans, we should value our own welfare above that of all other species. If we're able to improve the standards of living for animals without causing harm to our standards of living, the economy, or people's health, we should pursue that. I think growing meat in labs is the path forward to doing this. However, our current technology doesn't allow for that yet, so until then, I will sleep peacefully knowing that every cow, chicken, and pig that dies does so for a good cause. Meat is an integral part of the human diet, and no reputable anthropologist will tell you that our species is anything but omnivorous.

[John Dule]

Not having easy access to quality meat and dairy because of the disgraceful state of American agriculture is directly related to standard of living. (not saying this is a uniquely American problem, but that's what we're talking about here)

If you're talking about the sheer gluttony of many Americans, I agree. But that is mostly a product of groups that eschew personal responsibility/attempt to justify their disgusting habits through "acceptance."

[Santander]

Not having easy access to quality meat and dairy because of the disgraceful state of American agriculture is directly related to standard of living. (not saying this is a uniquely American problem, but that's what we're talking about here)

If you're talking about the sheer gluttony of many Americans, I agree. But that is mostly a product of groups that eschew personal responsibility/attempt to justify their disgusting habits through "acceptance."

I'm talking about the poor quality of meat and dairy in the US.

[GoTfan]

If improving the standard of living of an animal comes at even a slight expense to human standards of living, there's no reason to implement that change.

I really want to f#ck a dog.  Why should some dog's standard of living come at the expense of my raging boner?

Ejaculation, unlike access to affordable and healthy food, is not directly related to one's standard of living.

You can get both those things without eating meat.

I am not a vegan/vegetarian and I do not believe that animals and humans are entitled to the same rights, but you are setting a very cruel standard by disregarding the animals' welfare completely.

I'm not disregarding animal welfare at all. I'm just acknowledging the simple fact that, as humans, we should value our own welfare above that of all other species. If we're able to improve the standards of living for animals without causing harm to our standards of living, the economy, or people's health, we should pursue that. I think growing meat in labs is the path forward to doing this. However, our current technology doesn't allow for that yet, so until then, I will sleep peacefully knowing that every cow, chicken, and pig that dies does so for a good cause. Meat is an integral part of the human diet, and no reputable anthropologist will tell you that our species is anything but omnivorous.

Without those other species, things would fall apart for humans fairly rapidly

[WD]

Not having easy access to quality meat and dairy because of the disgraceful state of American agriculture is directly related to standard of living. (not saying this is a uniquely American problem, but that's what we're talking about here)

If you're talking about the sheer gluttony of many Americans, I agree. But that is mostly a product of groups that eschew personal responsibility/attempt to justify their disgusting habits through "acceptance."

I'm talking about the poor quality of meat and dairy in the US.

Do you mean the way its produced? Like with all the preservatives and chemicals put in them? Iirc I read an article that processed meat has been linked to a higher risk of Colon Cancer.

[Calthrina950]

If improving the standard of living of an animal comes at even a slight expense to human standards of living, there's no reason to implement that change.

I really want to f#ck a dog.  Why should some dog's standard of living come at the expense of my raging boner?

Ejaculation, unlike access to affordable and healthy food, is not directly related to one's standard of living.

You can get both those things without eating meat.

I am not a vegan/vegetarian and I do not believe that animals and humans are entitled to the same rights, but you are setting a very cruel standard by disregarding the animals' welfare completely.

I'm not disregarding animal welfare at all. I'm just acknowledging the simple fact that, as humans, we should value our own welfare above that of all other species. If we're able to improve the standards of living for animals without causing harm to our standards of living, the economy, or people's health, we should pursue that. I think growing meat in labs is the path forward to doing this. However, our current technology doesn't allow for that yet, so until then, I will sleep peacefully knowing that every cow, chicken, and pig that dies does so for a good cause. Meat is an integral part of the human diet, and no reputable anthropologist will tell you that our species is anything but omnivorous.

I certainly agree. I'm not too knowledgeable about "good" agricultural practices, but I'm skeptical that this bill is the best solution to this problem. And I couldn't imagine life without meat. I'm an enthusiastic omnivore, and I wouldn't want to give that up willingly.

[John Dule]

Without those other species, things would fall apart for humans fairly rapidly

I agree; their only relevance is in the value that they provide us.