Animal welfare is clearly a hot topic in the supermarket these days, as anyone can see just by taking a look at all the different types of labels and certifications that are meant to convince us that the animals we are eating led full, happy lives before they became dinner. The current list includes labels such as "free farmed," "certified humane," "cage free" and "free range," among others. Whole Foods is adding a new term to this group: animal compassionate.
"Animal compassionate" sets some of the following standards of care for animals: "Castration of sheep prohibited; electric prod on beef cattle permitted in emergencies; tail docking of pigs not allowed."
But in the end, these labels - many of which are developed by animal welfare groups or, as in this case, the stores that carry the products - are really just another security blanket for consumers who like the idea of an animal playing in a field and looking happy. It makes them feel good, like they're doing the right thing from the animal's perspective. It might also confuse consumers, many of whom already have difficulty choosing between organic, hormone/antibiotic free and grass fed animals.
10-25-2006 @1:57PM Average Betty said... There would be far more vegetarians in the world if average folks had to start raising and killing their own meat. The closest thing I have come to hunting... is scoring the perfect cut of filet at the market.
Reply
10-25-2006 @2:37PM Finished Law School said... This is ridiculous.
Reply
10-25-2006 @3:25PM geekpdx said... Nicole,
Since you linked to an article at the New York Times which requires registration, I can't (won't) read it. I am unsure whether you or the article are presenting the opinion that this is simply a "security blanket for consumers who like the idea of an animal playing in a field and looking happy. It makes them feel good, like they're doing the right thing from the animal's perspective."
Now, maybe I'm crazy - but just because I eat meat does NOT mean that I want to support farming practices that I find cruel; like castration, the docking of tails and use of cattle prods, etc.
Sure, these animals are bound for the butcher eventually, but their entire lives should not be miserable simply because they'll be eaten someday. Most of us may think that beating an animal is a horrible thing that should never happen or be supported. Zapping it with cattle prods isn't as horrible, but that doesn't make it any more acceptable to some of us.
If a rancher has taken the steps necessary to make sure that their livestock is raised in the same kind and respecful way that I would raise my own, I don't see a problem with them marketing that fact.
Reply
10-25-2006 @11:33PM Adriane said... I don't think raising and butchering your own meat would make for more vegetarians...but rather give people a deeper understanding and appreciation for the meat we most certainly take for granted.
Just recently I watched a food show on the BBC (can't remember the title- so sorry!) about a chef who bought live turkeys to raise then slaughter for thanksgiving to show his children that food (meat) doesn't just magically appear in the grocery store...I thought that was quite smart of him to teach his children this at a young age....just me?
Reply
10-26-2006 @2:48AM Eric said... ggekpdx, I think the point is not that actual avoidance of cuelty is a "security blanket", but rather that in the context of a supermarket such as Whole Foods, and within the reality of legalistic manipulations of common sense terms like "cruelty", and "compassionate", a label on a piece otherwise anonymous meat, guarantees little, and serves largely to assuage the guilt of consumers.
In the end, consumers need to come to terms with the fact that they are eating animals, animals that were concieved and have lived for the sole purpose of satisfying the appetite of human consumers.
Labels and certifications that imply that the meat in question lived a princely life surrounded by freinds, family, and lots of pillows, before it was killed doesn't really foster this kind of confrontation of reality (for obvious commercial reasons).
Personally, I've come to terms with the fact that I eat living things, and with the unavoidable cruelty of raising animals for the specific purpose of killing and eating them.
That said, of course, it turns out that practices that top the non-"compassionate" list are also detrimental to the quality and--more importantly--the health-safety of the eventual product. This, I think is a deeper cruelty, one that degrades both the animal, and the consumer, profiting only the (typically industrial) producer.
I think, then, that the concern is that the actual nuances of cruelty and compassion are too delicate to be captured by a supermarket label, and that if anything, labels of this sort are too easily co-opted by producers for whom compassion is not a value so much as a marketing device.
In other words, It is (quite intentionally) too easy for a busy consumer (myself among them) to rely on an empty label for the excuse that they need to purchase a product about which they perhaps ougth to have qualms.
Reply
10-26-2006 @3:20PM Jenny said... Eric, please explain which practices are detrimental to the quality of meat? I was under the assumption that grass fed was better, and if they arent packed in cages they dont get so many infections etc etc.
As a vegetarian I dont buy meat anyway, but if I was to start eating meat again, this helps me to make a more careful choice. I'm all for it as long as the standards are good and I'm not being duped, like happens with some of the organic stuff like horizon.
I also agree with the killing thing, I'm not prepared to kill a chicken, so I dont eat them.
Reply
10-26-2006 @5:21PM Heather said... I think this is a great development. The fact that Whole Foods is doing it for money and that these labels are in some sense marketing tools doesn't matter. It's a corporation; it's supposed to make money. For a long time now, industrial agriculture and the cruelty that goes along with it have been a blind spot of the free market, but maybe it doesn't have to be that way. Give the consumers a choice and see what happens.
Personally, I've found it damn near impossible to find out where the animal products I buy come from and how the animals were treated. Whole Foods is setting forth clear cut standards that their producers have to live up to. Tail docking of pigs is a good example. Some of the "cruelty-free" type labels actually allow this practice, which is incredibly cruel considering how intelligent and aware of their surroundings pigs are. If I can go to Whole Foods and know for sure that the pork I'm buying comes from pigs that didn't have to suffer that way, it's a good thing for everyone. The store gets a customer, I get a product I want, and farmers have more financial incentive to treat their animals well. Don't discount the moral benefits of something just because somebody makes money off of it.
Reply