We’ve got to stop treating animals like animals

Well done says:

01:56pm | 08/06/11

So clever and original.

BT says:

02:05pm | 08/06/11

I did an essay on this topic at uni. The dominant theme running through most of the research done into whether or not appealing to people’s emotions to convince people of the importance of the ethical treatment of animals seems to suggest it is an ineffective tactic for activists to use. Yes it raises awareness but beyond that it does little to change the habits of meat eaters. A more effective tactic is to use scientific measures that directly impact the meat eater directly. That being said, you may wish to know that the factory farming of animals causes more carbon emissions than all the world’s transport combined (WHO). Also, meat eaters experience 40% more cancer and 50% more heart disease than non meat eaters (British Medical Journal).
Does that wipe that smug smile off your face?

Rowdy says:

02:35pm | 08/06/11

@ BT…. no

Peter Cook says:

02:46pm | 08/06/11

What a crop of shit. Once those animals are sold tell me y it is my responsibility on how the are slaughtered. How about instead of stopping the exporting here and hurting our producers complain to those who are doing the damage. All you idiots havre done is hurt our economy by stopping the trade in live cattle. Indonesia will buy from someone else. If not Australia then someone will supply the live animal trade.

persephone says:

03:44pm | 08/06/11

BT

There’s been some studies which suggest that vegetarianism is healthier in Western countries, not because of the diet but because the type of person who becomes a vegetarian is more health conscious.

The same correlation between healthy living and vegetarianism doesn’t hold in India, where it’s largely a cultural choice.

Interestingly, India’s vegetarians are more prone to some kinds of cancers than non veggies are, apparently because of the lack of meat in their diet.

We’re omnivores. We need a bit of everything.

Geoff - Brisbane says:

03:46pm | 08/06/11

What about the vegitarians who are deficient in iron BT?

Also it was the use to meat (high energy) which built society. Without it we would still be running around throwing sticks and gathering berries.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

04:52pm | 08/06/11

Geoff - Brisbane

close. We evolved because we domesticated animals and cultivated crops, meaning we didn’t have to spend our entire waking hours chasing and gathering food. One of the reasons the aboriginals stayed where they were is because they killed off all the megafauna.

Sharron Woodward says:

05:56pm | 08/06/11

A thoughtful & interesting read Katrina.  I have been uncomfortable during this campaign.  I desperately want the abolition of all use of animals for human pleasure & entertainment etc.  I can’t help but feel somewhat grateful for the outcome feeling that the animals doomed to a trip to Indonesia have now been saved an excruciating death (at least in Indonesia.  They are still going to be slaughtered here). This campaign has granted us the opportunity to raise the issue of animal use & abuse & perhaps made people rethink their choices.  I actually know the answer to it.  It is really very simple.  One way & the only way to stop animal cruelty - Go Vegan!

bananabender says:

06:24pm | 08/06/11

The world’s lowest rates of coronary heart disease occur in traditional Greenland Eskimos who eat an ultra high fat diet with no fruit or vegetables.

The world’s highest rates of coronary heat disease occur in the vegetarians of southern India.

Vegetarians will never tell you these inconvenient facts

Barry says:

06:34pm | 08/06/11

@Sharron
I can still punch my dog in the head, even if I’m a Vegan.

john says:

07:39pm | 08/06/11

@Geoff @Tony of Poorakistan

both right but no cigar, we evolved because we came into existence at the right time & place, way after the dinosaurs, and horror ice-ages and asteroid impacts, and where the continents spread out to various landmasses and the planet “settled” to allow conditions for mammals to evolve, where most likely tree dwellers that need to grow more complex skeletal & muscle structures to flourish are more likely to become a dominant species. The turning point was when we discovered how to light fires. And in the late 1960’s we knew how to light one big enough to go to the moon. Any number of ape like creatures could have evolved into humans with some variance what we call race because they would have evolved enough to learn to mimick one another.

Francis Liew says:

08:27pm | 08/06/11

surprise that our government made such a quick decision to ban the export of animal. They have mercy on nimal and this is good. But can they also have mercy on human beings ‘the refugees “and ban the export /  “ëxchange” of them with Malaysia? Especially the children and women????

MHW says:

08:28pm | 08/06/11

No, not clever, if original! I’ll happily eat a steak sandwich if the beast is humanly killed.
Minister Ludwig’s inaction over years on the live export has allowed the animal Rights mob a free Punch! The Minister, with a department behind him, and a levy imposed on all producers by LiveCorp and Meat & Livestock Australia to raise the standards in foreign abattoirs, has simply been ignored until Animals Australia and 4 Corners blew the whistle. It’s the minister whose head should be on the block. This isn’t going to happen when Mr Garrett keeps his job for mismanaging the home insulation resulting in several young installers deaths. This is another disaster for the government and our nation. If the animal rights mob get their way the cattle will be sourced from Argentina whose farmers I understand supply the beef herd to Egypt when we withdrew from that market. It’s about time many heads rolled here, and not just the ministers.

Leig says:

09:00pm | 08/06/11

yep, and how are the vegetarians in Germany going at the moment?

Jennifer Bastin says:

09:58pm | 08/06/11

well done for writing this article.  Its time this practice ended, fingers crossed for the private members’ bills towards the end of the month

Michael says:

11:18pm | 08/06/11

I encourage all reasonable people to watch Earthlings and see what really happens to the meat that ends up on your table.  What happens in Indonesia is not isolated.

sol says:

10:07am | 09/06/11

Barry! Collect your ONE FREE INTERNET token then pass Go!

Engo says:

11:27am | 09/06/11

Oh FFS. Good work you leftie lot, you really should be proud of yourselves.

Let me preface this first off by saying I do not condone the practises shown in the four corners footage. It was barbaric and has to stop.

Indonesia needs live exports for 2 reasons -
1 - Refridgeration - The supply chain in Indonesia is such that meat slaughtered here will not last until it is sold to the end consumer. They simply do not have the infrastructure in place to refridgerate the amount of meat they consume in some regions

2 - Cultural - Many Indonesians prefer their meat fresh, i.e. slaughtered the previous day. Probably as a result of 1 above. You won’t change that cultural perception overnight.

So live exports from Australia is now banned. Woohoo, you say! Cows saved from a horrible death. You’ve stopped 6 months worth of Australian cattle being shipped overseas.

Demand for meat will not drop, so those live Australian cows will be replaced by American, or Argentinian, or somewhereelse cows. Same slaughter methods, same suffering. You can claim the moral high ground of “Oh but we won’t let OUR cows go there”. There is still animals suffering, and other suppliers may not care as much as you would hope either. There won’t be a motivation for those suppliers to improve conditions. As it is only a 6 month ban they will just sell as many cows as they can before we put ourselves back in the market.

The much smarter thing to do, and overall (potentially) less costly to the economy would have been to work directly with the Indonesians in the reverse manner. There is public pressure in this country to make sure this slaughter is done humanly, but now that we are no longer in the picture we will not have anywhere near as strong an influence. All that public outrage wasted.

We should have blacklisted the abbotairs shown in the video, then inspected every other one in Indonesia, blacklisting as we went. In the meantime we could have arranged to install proper stunning equipment and training (even donate it!) with the proviso that it would all be taken away if any evidence of mistreatment is found. That way we would have insured that ANY future cows (not just Australian ones) were not subject to this inhumane treatment again. Poorly performing abbotoirs would have the efficient stun guns removed, forcing them to return to the older, less humane methods which sure as hell don’t seem to be as efficient, hence decreasing profits. Sure, it would cost money. But surely not as much as what has been lost in the overnight banning of live exports.

And what about the cattle industry. 40% of our around $750m live cattle trade is with Indonesia! Gone overnight! What about the farmers, the working hands, the transport companies, shipping companies, dock workers, sailors, overnight out of pocket or even out of a job. Why do they have to pay for the atrocious behaviour of abbotair workers in another country? What about the loss to the economy in FNQ? That’s several MILLION dollars that would be spent in local communities, paying taxes, etc. All of that could have been saved, and if we’d actually spent some time, money and effort in Indonesia we could have ensured humane slaughter methods.

That’s what’s wrong with so many of you lefties. You act irrationally, emotionally, and don’t think through the consequences or even other options that may get a much better outcome. No, just stamp your feet and exclaim “BAN LIVE EXPORTS” until a whole industry, whole communities are affected.

This is the best example of the bloody inner city latte set with no idea of how the world operates outside 10km of the CBD. You all should be ashamed that the opportunity for a much better outcome was squandered.

Scot says:

11:48am | 09/06/11

So Labor have now killed and export market with over 400M per year. This is the peak season for exports from the Nth. so with a SIX months BAN on exports it will be 12 months before cattle exports can resume. Labor is so inept, they could have stopped $1.4B aid to Indonesia until they fixed this problem or sent people to Indonesia to fix it. But NO that would be too easy. The MLA should now take a class action against the federal government for their losses on behalf of the beef producers. Just how more stupid can this Government get. Ms. Saffin member for Page knows nothing about the beef industry in the Nth, this is typical spot fire knee jerk reactions by the Gillard Labor Government. Now they have started a forest fire, yet again. So why does Gillard not stop col exports to China. She has warned China about Human rights also on her last trip so if they ignore her will Rudd stop Coal exports? Rudd like Clinton is stirring up trouble in the middle east.

Charlie S says:

07:47am | 10/06/11

The problem is that animals aren’t being treated like animals, they are being treated like inanimate objects.  If we treated them like animals, we’d have to treat them like humans, as humans are animals too, just cocky ones with an inflated sense of entitlement.  21st Century now: no excuse not to recognize the fact there’s no excuse for any slavery, exploitation, oppression, etc.  We can’t justify it if we’re honest.

Tell It Like It Is says:

01:44pm | 08/06/11

Gosh, Dave Charlesworth, you’ve really made some quantum leaps. This debate is not actually about eating meat or not. Yes, humans, or many of them, eat meat. But there is a big difference between humane killing of animals for that purpose and ignorant cruelty and abuse.  And there is absolutely no correlation with eating a carrot!  Some fundamental lack of knowledge here. You need a brain to feel pain and experience feelings. And unless I’ve missed something that is not the case with any fruit or vegetable!

Tony of Poorakistan says:

01:57pm | 08/06/11

I think the argument is that it is the Muslim Indonesians who are doing the slaughtering in accordance with their pagan rituals. 
 
*shrug* when you deal with barbarians, expect barbaric behaviour

dave charlesworth says:

02:49pm | 08/06/11

@tell it like it is:

Did I not say I’m not in favour of torturing animals???? As for the carrot comment, your so far wrapped up in your own self feeling of good you’ve completely missed the point or should I say joke.

dd says:

02:53pm | 08/06/11

Have you never heard a carrot scream as it is tugged out of mother Earth, as it tries to hang on with its little roots? Or was it a parsnip! By all means stop live exports to the sadists, meat can be killed humanely but never in muslimland. Let them buy our beef frozen or let them eat cake.

CJ Morgan says:

05:30pm | 08/06/11

I see this as being about neither whether or not we should be vegetarians, nor about Halal slaughtering methods per se.

It’s about flagrant cruelty.  Animals can be slaughtered humanely for food purposes by stunning them before cutting their throats, whether or not somebody is uttering a religious incantation over them.

At the moment this clearly cannot be guaranteed for the live export trade to Indonesia, so it must cease for ethical reasons until it can.  As a small-scale beef producer I believe that we are responsible for the welfare of animals that we produce.  I wouldn’t sell my cattle for live export.

Jekub says:

05:35pm | 11/06/11

@Tell It Like It Is

The argument is about not eating meat. If you didn’t get that, what article did you read?

PTom says:

02:02pm | 08/06/11

“Only a major shift in our cultural assumptions about whether we have a right to use and exploit animals for food, fashion or entertainment will come anywhere close to doing that”

So you mean no shoes, no wool, no milk, no eggs, no fish, no sniffier dogs and are zoo’s entertainment or sanctuaries?

But what about the alternatives Nylon, Rubber, Foam, Plastics, Cotton and Tofu, all higher polluting requiring mines plantation that uses lot of water and pesticides.

How do we get our omega 3?

dave charlesworth says:

02:04pm | 08/06/11

And what has live exports got to do with our own meat industry that is slaughtered here???

There not tortured, your missing the point, the author is slipping in her animal rights slant on all farmed animal killing for meat.

Kika says:

02:55pm | 08/06/11

Dave Charlesworth - visited a piggery lately?

libertarian vegetarian says:

02:58pm | 08/06/11

@PT
You can get Omega 3s from a variety of plant sources, especially flax, walnuts etc.
You are most likely confusing Omega 3’s with DHAs, the “good stuff” in fish oils. You get it from the same place the fish do - algae. You do know they have to add DHAs to the diet of farmed fish? It’s not something that ‘built into’ fish, it comes from their diet. 
Easier to get some DHA drops or oil and your can have the DHAs and the fish can have thier life.

RyaN says:

03:01pm | 09/06/11

@Kika: have you?

Ben81 says:

01:42pm | 08/06/11

Maybe most of us did have our heads in the sand.  I certainly remember calling activists ignorant bloody idiots etc when they were contaminating feed for live export pigs (which may be treated better, I don’t know - I won’t just brush it off next time though) and not giving a crap about them.
The extent of the abuse was pretty surprising to me and I don’t see why we can’t just do the butchering here and live with what the market accepts when the alternative is so cruel.
Things like stomping on heads, eye gouging, snapping tails on an animal with a broken leg to make it move… it’s not worth it.

fairsfair says:

01:46pm | 08/06/11

I’m inclined to agree Greg. I think it horrific, and I haven’t wagered in on this topic before now, but how did people think beef ended up on the table? They were ticklet to death by fairies?

Yes I know there are more humane ways to execute, but just like we can’t really control how the uranium that we dig out of our ground is used (bahahah to anyone who suggests that we can through proliferation etc), we can’t really stipulate onward treatment of our stock. They have left our farms, they have left our shores, they have left our vessels.

There was an episode of that “mighty ships” show that centred around a lifestock vessel to Indonesia. They were well treated on the ship and then loaded into the backs of small trucks and driven off to their fate. I remember wondering at the time (it has to be a couple of years ago now that I watched it), that all that care and treatment was a bit pointless, though good to see. I didn’t need to be aware of the 4 Corners program to imagine how they died.

Yes I dont’ think it right, but as long as it does not happen on Australian shores. Rather than banning trade and impacting on the economy why don’t we seek to better the butchered export system or better the butchering system through training. Taking away the supply is just cutting of our nose to spite our face in an economic sense.

Kika says:

02:13pm | 08/06/11

The Cattle barons would have known this. They have been making money for years for this, as well as those shipping their sheep alive to the Middle East for their animal sacrifice festival.

fairsfair says:

02:34pm | 08/06/11

Kika, “Cattle Barons”? Honestly.

Why do people hate others who have managed to turn a shitty lifestyle into something extremely profitable? Are you jealous or something? I honestly do not get you bad attitude toward farmers of all kinds.

Kika says:

02:44pm | 08/06/11

Shtty lifestyle? Hardly. I know barons from both cattle & sheep properties. Neither are doing it tough at all. The dude from th sheep family is ok. The cattle guy is the most arrogant, self righteousness, incompassionate psychopathic asswipe mongrel I’ve ever come across. “I know everything because I come from the country, woe is me, life is tough being a farmer”.
Yeah real tough. You can wear Ralph Lauren polo shirts around the farm doing your every work just because you can.
Please. Tough.

Cry me a river says:

02:57pm | 08/06/11

Um, yes fairsfair, I actually DO have a problem with people who’ve turned a “shitty lifestyle into something extremely profitable” when it’s shitty because of the level of obscene cruelty involved…Profitability doesn’t necessarily equal morality or ethics! Move on…

fairsfair says:

03:12pm | 08/06/11

Australian slaughtered cattle are not treated like this. The farmer has no control over what happens to his cows when most of them are ultimately sold in a brokerage type set up at auction anyway. You can’t expect a cattle farmer to know that lot #562 ended up at Woolworths New Farm. They are simply part of a chain. Yes a chain that is ultimately not performing as it should, but blaming the “Barons” is not fair.

Most work hard for minimal return. And those who are wealthy would be so off the back of years of hard work (likely for many generations before them). Your example sounds like a complete tool yes, but you can’t tar them all with the same brush. It is very unfair of you.

The ones I know have a very shittly lifestlye on remote properties away from the luxuries of our everyday life. They live and die by the land as do their cows. That show on telly “Keeping up with the Jones’” is so different to the cattle farmers my family knows. I am not standing here saying that the person you know does not exist and that the Jones’ are fake, but you have to admit that the romantic notion of the wealthy homestead and spoiling of riches is most certainly the minority.

Kika says:

02:09pm | 08/06/11

Your logic is amazing. 1 cattle down in Africa compared to the millions bred and killed purposefully to feed humans? You can’t compare it. The wild pig which lived a peaceful, free life prior to being mauled compared to the pig born, raised and bred in a piggery is incomparible. Yeah which is more humane?

MissZoeLaLa says:

02:10pm | 08/06/11

“An extra 5 minutes of pain?” Stand with your hand on a hot plate for 5 minutes, and then we’ll have a chat, ok?

It should not matter what an animal is bred for.

Rowdy says:

02:33pm | 08/06/11

Wow…that was easy! Two quick bites….and they even took the hook!

Nick says:

02:40pm | 08/06/11

Maybe i should rephrase:
“I simply don’t care.”
I’d eat a golden, tasty burger regardless of whether the animal it came from died an agonising death or a painless one.

Goddamn, i love MEAT! Oh, what it is to be a MAN!

neil says:

02:44pm | 08/06/11

But the poor things will be left traumatized for the rest of their lives!

PTom says:

02:44pm | 08/06/11

@Kika
No more logical then the author who compared herself been murdered to that of cow being butched.

Bev says:

03:11pm | 08/06/11

they’d be mauled and eaten alive by jungle cats. Give me a throat-cutting any day.

Actually big cats clamp of fthe windpipe to kill their prey quite quickly.  Now wolves and wild dogs thats a different story.

Leigh says:

09:05pm | 08/06/11

@ Bev

LOL, go and watch a few Attenborough doco’s and see three lioness chewing on the hind quarters of a still living and screaming zebra

what a croc

Lucas C says:

10:12pm | 08/06/11

Nick, I’m not a ‘bleeding-heart’ type, but you are a rather vile person aren’t you? To have NO regard about the kind of cruelty these innocent, helpless creatures suffer, and then to make the ludicrous comparison that ‘jungle cats do it’...a ‘jungle cat’ doesn’t have the capacity to make ethical decisions. It can’t torture deliberately or indifferently, it simply has the impetus to kill quickly to survive. Humans have the capacity for moral choice, to be EVIL and IMMORAL is a choice we can make. It is demonstrably unethical to kick, break the legs and tails, gouge and horrifically slice at the throat of a cow up to 33 times (actual count from Indonesian tapes).

Not too long ago people justified as flippantly as you did the burning alive of ‘witches’ at the stake. We look back at that as equal parts disgusting and ludicrous. So to will future generations view our often appalling treatment of animals.

That’s not lefty propaganda. I’m a life-long Liberal voter. In short, if you aren’t trolling, you’re a decidedly unpleasant person.

Bev says:

11:25pm | 08/06/11

Leigh says:09:05pm | 08/06/11

@ Bev

LOL, go and watch a few Attenborough doco’s and see three lioness chewing on the hind quarters of a still living and screaming zebra

If you watch enough docs you will find that is the exception that makes the rule.  As to wild dogs having watched dingoes in Kakadu cut out a boar from the wild pig herd and inflict death by a thousand cuts I know which kills quicker and with less trauma.  As the guide said a National Geographic moment.

James In Footscray says:

11:50pm | 08/06/11

Nick, when you reach adolescence, you’ll understand that running down the street yelling ‘I’m a man’, and telling potential girlfriends you think cruelty to animals is funny, might not be doing you any favours.

dave charlesworth says:

01:56pm | 08/06/11

Puzzling comment:

So does this mean we can eat meat?? You’ve at least admitted we are supposed to eat meat.

If so, who is going to slaughter the animal and how should they do it without upsetting the animal? (upsetting of course unless you think ulitmately being killed wouldn’t upset your day), don’t forget this is the crux of the author’s story?

Gary says:

01:57pm | 08/06/11

Yeah, maybe in your limited experience of the world’s cultures.  How about cultures who derive their main nourishment from protein (meat) and fat?  Their bodies are adapted.  If it was so unhealthy they wouldn’t exist.

Another thing: this whole argument (wrapped up as it is with human belief systems and world-view) seems to be based on some kind of notion that we are not animals.  Are we special?  Some kind of higher being?  We’re highly organised, but in the end, we’re just animals.  And a lot of animals eat each other.

Not that I like torture either, but that’s a result of my culture and upbringing.  Stop the torture but keep feeding me beef.

bryan martin says:

02:16pm | 08/06/11

not only a good article but a very good reply you are perfectly right it is a disgusting industry and if we were really concerned with the climate we would reduce the amount of cattle on the planet , unfortunately it’s all controlled by big business

PTom says:

02:18pm | 08/06/11

If you had evdince you would be dangerous. This arctile is about stopping all animal products not just meat.

Some fact you over looked.
Cattle require less resource then tofu and I sure that feed the poor dry hay wan’t help them.

“Ours is longer in design to process more fibre HENCE the massive bowel cancer rate as we’re not eating proper diets to cope with increasing meat consumption.”
Medical break through Bowel Cancer caused by too much meat. Have you told all the research team about your break thru yet.

Kika says:

02:54pm | 08/06/11

Nothing is new in what I said. It’s true. Ask your doctor.

Yes, we can eat meat. But we’re not supposed to eat meats in copious quantities. Our guts are larger and longer than most other animals that eat meat all the time.

Cultures who eat meat most of the time? I.e. Inuit right? Well Europeans who have tried to adapt to their diets have died very quickly thanks to an overload of Vitamin A built up in the liver. The Inuit needed to survive on meat and fat alone thanks to living in Ice. Inuit life expectancy = 50-60 years. They were also found to have the highest rate of cancer against other Canadians. Good example of a diet with high concentrates of meat with poor life expectancy and health.

Yeah a lot of animals eat each other. But they don’t build factory farms letting them live in horrible conditions to brutally kill them in the end.

Oh whatever - the same soybeans are used to feed the cattle too. Do you care to know the process of getting a grain into a cow into a human?

neil says:

03:39pm | 08/06/11

Kika says:02:54pm | 08/06/11

Our intestines are a lot shorter than even a chimpanzees which is why we cannot live healthily on a raw vegetable diet, the reduction in the size of our intestines is a trade of for a bigger brain, they are both have energy demand.

We have evolved to eat cooked meat, the cooking breaks down proteins effectively being the first stage of digestion, there’s no going back now.

Jen says:

03:46pm | 08/06/11

err PTom I thought that was pretty available information about cancer, that eating too much meat isn’t good for us.

Gary says:

03:55pm | 08/06/11

Seriously Kika, get your facts straight.  Cancer has risen in the Inuit (try sourcing your claims) - because of this: http://www.cancermonthly.com/iNP/view.asp?ID=228
due to the adoption of Western lifestyles and practices.  The Cancer researchers put it down to the change from mainly high protein to high carbohydrate diet.  So to put it plainly, they stopped eating fish, whale, seal etc all the time and started eating things like bread.

Google may be *your* friend for truthiness, but my Encyclopedia Britannica (leather-bound) is a better source of information.  Try reading beyond your first personal confirmation bias google website hit before responding next time.

Kika says:

04:26pm | 08/06/11

Neil - true. There’s no point to your argument. Just because we can doesn’t mean we should. A balanced diet is the key - not too much of anything.

Hannah says:

05:57pm | 08/06/11

@ Gary: I’m fairly certain that the increase in poor health that the Inuits have experienced is related *somewhat* more to the increase in saturated fats, increased smoking, decrease in exercise and decrease in consumption of unsaturated fatty acids. Seems fairly straight forward?

Great that you’re trying to back up your argument with evidence, but it’s not doing much for you.  Also, it’s very easy to obtain protein without meat, possible even without any animal products whatsoever (I know, crazy right?).  A diet without meat does not automatically equate to one of little protein and too many carbohydrates. That’s a dietary choice, most likely influenced by the availability and low cost of processed and nutritionally poor food that’s easy to obtain and tasty.  Funnily enough that’s why white people get fat too, who woulda thought?

Don’t get me wrong, I do eat meat, just not in the vast amounts that the western world has decided is appropriate. It’s not healthy, sustainable or even particularly smart to smash down 2-3 large serves of meat a day. Sure we need protein, but that’s just taking the piss.

The emotion and bizarre attachment to meat need to be removed from this debate so we can look at just the facts without being silly about it.

Barry says:

06:46pm | 08/06/11

@Hannah
I have the slight feeling you may need to read Kika’s post, and then Gary’s post again.  You seemed to have missed something here.  You just repeated exactly what Gary said, and for some reason attempted to claim this as new information, and that Gary hadn’t just said this exact thing.

@ Gary: I’m fairly certain that the increase in poor health that the Inuits have experienced is related *somewhat* more to the increase in saturated fats, increased smoking, decrease in exercise and decrease in consumption of unsaturated fatty acids.

I’m pretty sure that’s what Gary meant when he said Western lifestyles and practices.  You’re comment would be much better served with a rebuttal for Kika, who was trying to claim the Inuit have cancer due purely from high intake of meat, which is rubbish.

Lisa H. says:

12:13am | 09/06/11

@neil ‘there’s no going back now’
Well actually Neil, I’ll eat what I like… and that means pretty much meat free.

It’s partly an emotional thing… I figure cows are just too darn evolved for me to feel good about eating them.

As the daughter of a meat farmer, I had red meat every night until I left home. My iron levels have improved because I’m eating more fresh veggies than in my youth.

My husband is genetically inclined towards all the standard Western forms of ill health - heart problems, high blood pressure etc.

Since he stopped eating meat, he’s lost weight, blood pressure down, cholesterol down, etc etc.

The Japanese can’t be too far wrong, longest lived race on earth… with very tiny portions of meat…

but by all means, do what you like Neil…without gratuitious cruelty

braunman says:

10:25am | 09/06/11

@Kika

Just wanted to point out an inaccuracy in your original post. The food they give to livestock is generally not fit for human consumption, mainly byproducts of wheat and barley farming. Cattle are able to eat it in the same way that they can eat grass and we can’t.

Also cats are not 100% carnivore and are supposed to eat a small amount of vegetable matter. The meat percentage should be about 80-90% but don’t quote me on that.

Other than that, carry on!

Kika says:

02:06pm | 08/06/11

Because the guilt hurts, doesn’t it? That’s ok. Keep shovelling the meat down your throat. Don’t care about the own practices of raising slaughtering animals in this country and go along you own merry way.

Markus says:

02:17pm | 08/06/11

She would have been better off going with the Us vs Them argument - that other countries are using our high quality live exports to breed their own quality product, and cut us out of the equation altogether.

It’s just as illogical an argument, but more likely to gain support of the average citizen than the usual “meat is murder!” routine.

PTom says:

02:21pm | 08/06/11

Did you know it cheaper and more environmental friendly to send live meat then frozen. It also allows countries that have low amounts of refrigeration units to have fresh meat.

Elphaba says:

02:33pm | 08/06/11

@Markus, true.  The preachy vegetarian thing has had its day.  We are a species that eats meat.  No one is saying she has to, but the whole doe-eyed (pardon the pun) “Won’t someone please think of the animals!” routine is getting old.

Animals that are consumed by humans shouldn’t suffer.  There’s no need.  But raising animals for food has long since been part of our makeup.  There are too many people on the planet now to reverse it and let the animals go free.  It’s an impossibility.

Personally, re: the vegetarian thing, nothing gets my goat (again… sorry) more than the “Don’t eat baby cows and sheep…. but fish are ok” lot.  Still, no one has been able to tell me why it’s ok to eat fish when the Mythbusters proved that the 3 second memory thing is total bollocks.  If they have memory, why can’t they have feelings?

Elphaba says:

02:41pm | 08/06/11

@Kika,

If being environmentally aware means being as thick as you - I’ll pass.

Markus says:

02:53pm | 08/06/11

The only thing that hurts, Kika, is the endless shrill whining from activists that just don’t seem to be able to comprehend that nobody cares.

libertarian vegetarian says:

03:03pm | 08/06/11

So how do you kill something without it suffering?

Elphaba says:

03:11pm | 08/06/11

@libertarian vegetarian

Oh, goody.

Shall I clarify?  Kill it quickly.  As quickly as possible.  Make sure processes are in place and equipment is checked and serviced religiously to ensure no animal suffers a protracted death.

Mrs O says:

03:54pm | 08/06/11

Elphaba I have some friends who will not eat baby cows and sheep but will eat fish on the basis that they would (and have) killed a fish.  They have the view, which I do admire on some level, that if they are not willing to kill it then they have no right to eat it.  They are not willing to kill a baby cow or sheep so don’t eat it.  They don’t call themselves vegetarian though….

libertarian vegetarian says:

04:04pm | 08/06/11

@Elphaba
Still don’t understand this guarantees no suffering?
Sure I’d prefer to be killed quickly rather than slowly , but I’d still rather no be killed and am pretty darned sure it wouldn’t be a suffering nuetral experience.

Would you have no problem with your dog or cat being killed in this fashion so they can be eaten? 

What way would be acceptable for you to be killed?

Kika says:

04:29pm | 08/06/11

Thick? Lol. Good come back. Albert Einstein was a vegetarian and Leonardo DaVinci. Complete blockheads hey.

Kika says:

04:37pm | 08/06/11

And by the way Markus - I am aware of that. Hence the topic of my post - NOBODY cares.

Elphaba says:

04:59pm | 08/06/11

@libertarian vegetarian, I don’t have a problem with animals being killed for meat.  Deal with it.  If you do, then I completely and utterly support your right to protest it.  But we’re never going to agree, and you trying to point out that there is some failing in my thinking and that you’re so much smarter and in tune with Mother Earth is *yawn* boring, frankly.

@Kika - you’re citing exceptional human beings as the rule?  Nice try.  I don’t think vegetarians are stupid.  I think people who think that we should just let all the animals run free and think that it is a solution, stupid.

libertarian vegetarian says:

05:29pm | 08/06/11

@Elphaba
What the **** has “mother earth” got to do with anything? And who or what IS a “mother earth”?? I certainly don’t believe in any such being or any other hippy crap. You stated that animals should be killed without suffering. I asked you what method of killing would guarantee that. As you can’t point to a method that would, you are a hypocrit. You don’t actually care whether the animal suffers or not. Maybe you need to “deal with it” as you are obviously in denial.

Elphaba says:

08:45pm | 08/06/11

@liberal vegetarian, I said I would prefer if animals were killed with as little suffering or not at all.  I can’t say that there is a method that promotes absolutely no suffering, nor did I pretend there was one.  It was a preference - not an absolute.

But there are clearly quick ways to kill animals and slower ones.  So I prefer the quick.  There is no need for needless, protracted suffering.  We clearly euthanise our pets in a peaceful way, whether we can apply it to the livestock industry is anyone’s guess. 

I never said there was one.  You are putting words in my mouth in an attempt to make me feel guilty.  Get over yourself.  I don’t care what you do or how you live your life.  I don’t tell you to eat meat.  Don’t tell me I’m a hypocrite or a lesser human for supporting people’s right to eat meat if they want.

fairsfair says:

01:52pm | 08/06/11

Ooh my mum would slap you down for that comment! She will see no harm come to Big Brown, Snowball and Beyonce

I do disagree with that though. They may not be super intelligent, but they do have personalities when they are in a small pecking order and allowed to range free. I also find the notion of feral chickens on Norfolk Island interesting. Apparently they are quite dangerous.

But back in reality - 99.9999% of all chickens on this planet would simply be alive to be killed or alive for some eggs and then be killed. Our farming practices have no doubt impacted on their “sentient” status.

Don’t get me wrong, I love chicken! Even though they are supposedly electrocuted before they are de feathered etc, I am sure that doesn’t happen everywhere.

Claudia says:

01:53pm | 08/06/11

That’s a very ignorant comment. A chicken has no sentience, are you kidding me? They think, feel, perceive - they are conscious. They have a heart, a brain, they feel pain. They are aware.

Carolyn says:

01:57pm | 08/06/11

Great article!

Each animal is an individual and their lives are important to them, even if to no-one else. To continue violently oppressing other individuals because we think they taste good, is immoral. I agree, we can - and must - do better.

I’m not familiar with the scientific evidence of a sunflower having the same amount of sentience as a chicken. Is that available online?

dave charlesworth says:

01:59pm | 08/06/11

Give it time DaisyDuke, give it some time….. they way we are heading we’ll be debating this very thing in a few years… those poor sunflowers.

persephone says:

02:01pm | 08/06/11

Haven’t kept chickens, have you?

Far more interesting than sunflowers.

Kika says:

02:11pm | 08/06/11

They are too! My Grandmother taught her pet chickens to jump hoops. Chickens have feelings and emotions just as any animal does. They are quite smart. Comparing a sunflower to a chicken just shows how little you actually know about the subject.

Here’s a start:-

http://www.chickenindustry.com/cfi/intelligence/

Lisa H. says:

02:15pm | 08/06/11

Erm, no, a chicken has more self-awareness than a sunflower.
have a think about it.
eg. a chicken feels pain while it is laying an egg
a chicken will attempt to run or protect itself if it is attacked by other chickens.
a chicken may bully others, or peck its own feathers out from stress…

MOS says:

02:25pm | 08/06/11

DaisyDuke, you’re wrong. Pure and simple. Sentient means the ability to sense your surroundings - to see, hear, taste etc and to feel pain. Chickens do all that. If you were thinking ‘intelligent’ instead - please see http://www.livesofanimals.org/tag/chicken/

Ben81 says:

02:45pm | 08/06/11

Well Data didn’t consider his cat on the Enterprise to be sentient by his measure but still thought of him as more than a plant.  :D

“Oh Spot, the complex levels of behaviour you display
connote a fairly well-developed cognitive array.
And though you are not sentient, Spot, and do not comprehend,
I nonetheless consider you a true and valued friend.”

DaisyDuke says:

05:09pm | 08/06/11

Sentience is more than just being alive or having a brain, it means conception of your own existence.

A chicken, has a brain controlling the cells collectively. Food, water, procreation, rest are all that goes through the chickens mind - for the sole purpose of cell survival.

Exactly the same as sunflower stives to be alive - the flower follows the sun, roots look for water/nutrients. They do this through the cells striving to exist.

Hence a flower has the same amount of sentience as a chicken.

Lucas C says:

10:31pm | 08/06/11

Doubt you will, but try reading Peter Singer’s ‘Practical Ethics’ or ‘In Defense of Animals’, both clearly and logically articulate the stupidity of your comparison of chickens to sunflowers. To paraphrase - the question is not can they write poems, or recognise themselves in a mirror, but CAN THEY SUFFER? The answer is, scientifically and ethically, YES. Therefore it is immoral to cause them suffering.

You and I could be reduced to your description of a complex series of cells seeking survival - even our consciousness is a product of it. Intelligence and cognition are not the measure for suffering. I’d like to think you wouldn’t condone the torture of the intellectually disabled would you? What, other than their mere membership of the human species, would make a person disabled to the level of a cow’s IQ, make them undeserving of torture by your logic?

And lastly, should an alien race come along, vastly more intelligent and evolved than us, would you perhaps protest them converting you and your family into meat for their consumption? Alas, you wouldn’t be able to communicate with them your desire to not be tortured and eaten, they don’t understand you. All you could do was display those obvious and universal signs of suffering - fear, crying out in pain, trembling, resisting moaning, as you died.

That’s how it is for animals.

PTom says:

02:53pm | 08/06/11

Yet the same vegan wear leather shoe, leather jackets and woolen clothes.
I guess they could use cotton that require lots of water and pesticide.

dave charleworth says:

03:04pm | 08/06/11

Combine this idealism with the Carbon Tax and Global Warming Con job and we truly are heading back to the dark ages… you would have my family shivering around the candle lights at night, sipping gum leaf soup and chewing on grass for dinner…

Nick have we spent all these years evolving for nothing?

libertarian vegetarian says:

04:59pm | 08/06/11

@PTom
You might want to look up the definition of vegan. Vegans don’t use leather or wool.  They do not use an animal product when there is an alternative.  Perhaps you mean vegetarians? Although many vegetarians do choose not to use leather or wool, it is not part of the definition.
There are also lots of environmentally friendly options, not just cotton.
So thats a silly strawman arguement, isn’t it?

@dave
I don’t use any animal products I can avoid, yet I am not shivering by candlelight. I also would never vote Labor or Green and sure as heck won’t support a rotten social wealth redistribution scheme masquerading as a a fix for something that may or may not even exist.

Why does it have to be one way or the other?  The world didn’t come to an end when slavery was abolished.

Sickemrex says:

05:04pm | 08/06/11

@ dave c - can we still have beer?

leftiemoronhere says:

06:46pm | 08/06/11

In my experience, there is little point in debating with meat eaters, they believe we are designed to eat meat and they just don’t care that an animal has to die to give them what they think is a nice tasting meal.  They will just call us leftie morons and keep living their lives.  Sadly for cows, sheep, pigs, chickens and horses, Australians are selective in their choice of which animal is worthy of life…Dogs and cats aren’t on the menu but I suspect if us leftie morons weren’t speaking out that they just might be…The truth is, we are wired differently and before I hear the same city dweller crap, I am from the country and have been close to slaughter (not my choice) with farmers etc…what I saw traumatised me and still affects me, but my Brother saw the same thing and he didn’t and doesn’t care and is a rampant meat eater needless to say we are not close but it just proved to me that we are born different.

Slaughter isn’t going to end soon so I just want the death to be absolutely painless at this time and I do believe that meat eaters and Vegans together can make this happen.

Steve says:

07:22pm | 08/06/11

Leftie moron. You are right on so many levels. I am a meat eater and I do believe we were meant to eat meat. It is not so much that I don’t care that an animal has to die it is more that I just don’t think about it. When i eat carefully cooked meat I prefer to think of it as a celebration of the life of that animal. I am sorry you never get to enjoy such celebrations.

Whilst the left would like to claim ownership of the leftie morons there is more crossover than you would expect.

I have never heard a leftie moron speak out on the consumption of cats and dogs so I think you can’t lay claim to that victory. In fact most leftie morons live in fear of upsetting ethnic minorities so you would rarely find them speaking out on the consumption of cats and dogs.

I would suggest a very small piece of crispy pork crackling to help with your PTS.

Meat eaters and vegans working together sounds like a good idea. Leftie loonies do come up with goods ideas. I can see it as the basis of a good sit com.

Kate says:

07:47pm | 08/06/11

They might meet all their nutritional requirements, but geez they’re preachy and annoying.

As Elphaba said above, it’s cool that vegetarians/vegans make that lifestyle choice and you have the right to do so, but there is absolutely no way you’ll ever convince me to stop eating meat. Cite statistics about nutrition, call me cruel etc., I’ll still eat it and so will millions of others.

libertarian vegetarian says:

05:16pm | 08/06/11

So is your point that it’s OK to eat children too? Or the mentally ill? Perhaps your compassion pie is so small that you can’t worry about them all??
So people who worry about starving African should be castigated because people are also hungry in India?  Or those who work with the blind are unfair because some people are deaf and some have cerebral palsy and some have no limbs at all?
How does treating animals as commodities help abused children or the mentally ill?

ABC says:

06:40pm | 08/06/11

You’ve missed the point. Points of view such as the writers, suggest that animals are a more worthwhile or at least equival commodity to treat “humanely” than humans.  You cannot elevate animal suffering over that of humans, no matter what your cause.

Lisa H. says:

12:03am | 09/06/11

I’m with libertarian. It doesn’t take much effort to improve the experience of animals that are being killed for meat.

The animals themselves are not aware that ‘being killed’ is it’s reason for living. They will cling to life and avoid pain as much as any other living creature.

Dealing with their deaths responsibility is not going to significantly effect (positively or negatively) the experiences of humanity.

Gratuitious cruelty is a crime against our natures, because we are human and so have the ability to comprehend (if very dimly) the suffering of other beings.

So perhaps you have missed ‘the’ point. Whatever that was. Something about avoiding gratuitious cruelty, in all its guises, I think…

Giving meat animals a humane death is not ‘elevating animal suffering over that of humans’. I can’t see why you think it is? Treating animals correctly helps foster an environment where we treat humans correctly.

Anne71 says:

12:58pm | 10/06/11

@ABC I’m sorry. But I for one am capable of feeling compassion for all living creatures, not just the ones that walk upright and have opposing thumbs.

PTom says:

03:01pm | 08/06/11

You should have herad the stories I heard growing up about christian abattoirs in this country.

Kika says:

04:42pm | 08/06/11

Christian Abbatoirs? I’d say they are secular ones. Since when do Christians require ritual slaughter of meat?

PTom says:

03:00pm | 08/06/11

How much further do they need to export live meat?

That when refrigeration become the more humane process.

Kika says:

03:00pm | 08/06/11

I absolutely agree. Our Kiwi cousins are light years ahead of this country on so many levels… And I am an Aussie and have no shame in admitting that!! I think it has something to do with the lifestyle. We’ve all become so self consumed in this country to really give a damn to things outside of our own immediate concerns and needs.

Geoff - Brisbane says:

04:04pm | 08/06/11

Actually holly, the sky has fallen in since New Zealand has been in recession since the begining of 2008. I.e. they were in a depression. Krudd money increased their GDP slightly in 2009 and now theyre heading back for recession.

PTom says:

03:05pm | 08/06/11

This article is about stopping the use of all animals in our society like no police dogs or wool.

dave charlesworth says:

03:11pm | 08/06/11

Just end it all now Brett!

Time to get back to your Uni class mate!

Geoff - Brisbane says:

04:11pm | 08/06/11

What right does the lion have to kill and harm the zebra? Going to arrest the lion while your at it? Give it a 12 month suspended sentence? Send it to anger management?

Cloud Strife says:

03:16pm | 08/06/11

@Lilly

But we *are* meant to eat meat. Just look at our teeth! We have canines and incisors, as well as molars and grinding teeth. Humans are omnivores.

Look at a cat. All incisors and canines, because all cats are strict carnivores (the one thing that makes me angrier than anything is vegans who try to make their cat go vegan. That is animal cruelty, pure and simple). 

Look at horse. All molars and grinding teeth because they eat plants.

dave charlesworth says:

03:16pm | 08/06/11

It was a joke Lilly, just like you Animal Activists on here, who obviously have just been champing at the bit to roll out the old vegan, ban all animal slaughter for humans campaign chestnut….

Lets be honest this live exporting thing has been going on for many years, this is really just an excuse for you to start preaching the righteous good again isn’t it?

Bev says:

03:29pm | 08/06/11

It was thought that our nearest relative the chimps only ate vegtable matter. Suprise suprise the more intense observation of animals now occuring show that chimps do kill and eat other small animals. Its not cultural its built in. Some cultures eat more meat some less, doesnt change our basic nature.

ah_there_it_is says:

04:34am | 09/06/11

@ Cloud Strife Thanks for meeting expectations…canine teeth, ah the age old argument never dies…into the paddock with ya, I’m sure you can find a cow to use those teeth on, be sure to get a calf though, the big ones might present a challenge.

Piana says:

08:36am | 11/06/11

ROFL!! Oh why oh why won’t the ridiculous ‘but we haz teh canine teefs’ argument go away?! You know who ALSO have canines? Real HUGE ones? Our fructivorous cousins, gorillas and chimps. Jeez, I can’t believe all these people actually think their puny pathetic canines which barely protrude past their incisors would manage to rip the flesh out of hairy tough-hided buffalo flanks or pierce the jugular of a fleeing antelope.

Oh and another thing Cloud Strife, there are plenty of cats fed vegan diets who live extremely long healthy energetic disease-free lives. You must have a different definition of the word ‘cruelty’ than I do. Oh wait - yes you do, because you think feeding a cat a demonstrably healthy diet IS cruel, and don’t think sinking your canines(!) into another animal you don’t need to kill in order to live is. Though presumably not your cat, amirite? Cos she’s not an eatin’ animal but a pettin’ one - and as everyone knows ‘THAT’S DIFFERENT’

Puke.

Use your brains, people. Supposedly that’s what sets you apart from other animals, but it sure doesn’t sound like it from reading these disturbing comments. The reactionary defensiveness and excruciating lack of critical thought is painful to see.

Blind Freddy says:

02:35pm | 08/06/11

Usually I find you one of the more rational contributors on this blog - is this really you.?

Your leap in logic is ridiculous. Nothing happens overnight- especially meat eating Australians realising their complicity in the industrialised cruelty inflicted on animals.

As a vegetarian of over 30 years I would be happy if it faded away . . . . .

Que says:

03:11pm | 08/06/11

I agree with Blind Freddy, this can’t actually be persephone. I’m agreeing with just about everything he is writing today.

dave charlesworth says:

03:23pm | 08/06/11

@Persephone,

Everything Blind Fred said, but the complete opposite. Well said.

You know this comment does lean to the right!!

Mattb says:

03:34pm | 08/06/11

Ship em all to India, they’re sacred there arent they, you pay the father of your bride to be with cattle. Maybe we can use all our cattle to buy the entire IPL 20/20 cricket series and bring it back to Australia!

Gary says:

03:06pm | 08/06/11

Rubbish.  Try farming the food you eat as a ‘vegan’.  I think you’ll find many animals are killed and displaced during the production to keep you alive and self-righteous.  Do you think there is a special team running ahead of the header or tractor telling all the small animals to get out of the way?  A tonne of wheat kills more animals than 300kg of beef.

And your other argument ‘we’re the only animal that does <insert unique feature here>, so it must be wrong”.  Rubbish too.  An ant strokes an aphid to get nectar.  It’s the only species that does this.  They must be crazy, and in need of help from a vegan psychotherapist.

neil says:

03:17pm | 08/06/11

Tell a lie often enough and people will start to believe it. It is very difficult to remain healthy on a vegan diet, the balance between to much high GI carbs and insufficient caleries is a fine line and compensating with to many low GI carbs can cause your digestive system to shut down especially if things aren’t well cooked. It’s safer and easier to eat some level of animal protein. Try eating nothing but uncooked fruit, veg and nuts for a week and see if you can get past day 4.

There are two types of vegans those dieing from type 2 diabetes and those slowly starving.

Cloud Strife says:

03:21pm | 08/06/11

It’s a huge privelege to be vegan; it’s a very exspensive lifestyle, and not ultimatley workable for everyone.

PTom says:

03:31pm | 08/06/11

More medical break through.

What do the sites say

There’s no known cause of breast cancer but risk factors include:
Getting older
A family history of breast cancer
Starting periods early or menopause late
Not breast-feeding
Not having children
Taking hormone replacement therapy (HRT) after menopause
Being overweight after menopause
Drinking alcohol
Taking the contraceptive pill

#Nope nothing about meat.

You may be able to decrease your risk of developing prostate cancer if you:
Quit smoking
Eat a healthy diet with less meat and dairy
Exercise

#Less meat not no meat.

Diabeties what about the sugars which are a major factor.

You will find no Medical expert in Australia that will tell you stop eating meat or dairy to prevent any of disease you have talked about.
Eating less and a balanced diet, exercise and not smoking or drinking will help more then not eat meating.

Bev says:

05:51pm | 08/06/11

Spot on Neil.  Many vegans just chop meat out but don’t change anything else.  Trouble is there are 23 amino acids our body needs to build protien. No plant has the full compliment.  Hence corn and beans in the Mexican diet. or other combinations.  True we could eat a lot less meat in the West but being a healthy vegan requires a very careful balance of diet something I don’t see a lot of vegetable munching vegans doing. Interesting thought about type 2 diabetes I haven’t seen any research but I think your on the money.

Dan says:

02:38pm | 08/06/11

Gold - love your work Que (and I won’t treat you like a funny bastard).

Claudia says:

02:40pm | 08/06/11

I think you’re a perfect example of mad cow’s disease…

Que says:

03:14pm | 08/06/11

Takes one to know one Claudia,.... moo.

dave charlesworth says:

03:28pm | 08/06/11

Have a bit of trouble detecting humour AT? Or to busy feeling good about yourself?

Blind Freddy says:

03:42pm | 08/06/11

Still milking it? Yawn. It was the headline- not the argument.

What it really meant was-  don’t treat animals in the way that people such as que and dan treat animals.

Bev says:

03:51pm | 08/06/11

Exactly.  What is required is better education.  Even their imans suggest that such practices are not halal. 
Oh and forget killing here and refrigerated export they don’t have fridges out of their big cities.  That is unless we supply the fridges and the power stations. They cannot afford them. Of course then we would have to deal with the howls of protest from the climategate mob. Which incidently shows why closing down our own coal fired power generators is such BS.  Unless we want to go back to village life. Bit difficult if your an inner city elete living in a highrise with ever comfort at hand.

Que says:

04:15pm | 08/06/11

Don’t be naive BF. “what was really mean’t” was a typical feral leftist push to drag a modern society into a vegetarian eutopia.

I am in favour for a better death for animals and was disgusted by the 4C images. However, I think extending the argument for a quicker less painful death to cessation of all of the animal food industry is juvenile.

PTom says:

03:35pm | 08/06/11

Yes let tax tofu higher.

dave charlesworth says:

04:18pm | 08/06/11

Oh please Judes.. the children, won’t somebody think of the children?

You make sure you feel peachy good about yourself tonight as you tuck yourself into bed!!

Elphaba says:

03:40pm | 08/06/11

Too true…

Que says:

03:44pm | 08/06/11

They usually smell like cabbage.

Kika says:

04:35pm | 08/06/11

Actually you can smell a meat eater faster than you smell a vegetarian. Particularly in the toilets. FOUL.

Que says:

08:13pm | 08/06/11

Kika, do you spend a fair bit of time in toilets smelling faeces do you?

Que says:

03:41pm | 08/06/11

Please,...“vego all the way baby”. 

Tanya, you need to travel to a third world country to see what real hunger and survival is all about. I can assure you that the locals do not agonise over “cutest little lambs”. They are very happy to have the life saving calories. Your take on things is a first world naive indulgence.

Just because you can’t hear the carrots screaming doesn’t mean should be able to sleep at night.

Tanya says:

04:19pm | 08/06/11

Hi Que, funny you mentioned that - I have traveled to a third world country, as a volunteer. I can tell you that food was the last thing on my mind when considering the many children and infants dying from lack of care. I thought we were talking about Australia, a first world country, with every option available to us and excess calories too boot.

Kika says:

04:33pm | 08/06/11

Que - please. If you have been to a third world country then you should be aware of how much of that poverty and hunger could be alleviated simply by allocating of resources grown for stockfeed to be directed towards hungry people instead. The amount of land that is used to grow food for stock, and then processed into stockfeed, and then transported to the wholesaler, to be bought by the farmer to feed to his stock purely to feed rich people who can eat meat…  If you care for the hungry third world, then you should care about this.

Que says:

05:52pm | 08/06/11

Tanya,... “with every option available to us and excess calories too boot. “

Yes, I like meat. You don’t. That’s the beauty of living in a first world country. We can choose. Yes the animal should be killed as painlessly as reasonably possible. I therefore do not support you intention to impose ‘advocate change’ based on ‘cutest little lambs’.

Tanya says:

07:06pm | 08/06/11

thanks for agreeing with me Que - “the animal should be killed as painlessly as reasonably possible”. The discussion is not about advocating animal rights by becoming a vegetarian - especially not based on what motivates me, everyone has their own reasons. It’s advocating change in the system - how meat has become industrialised, divorced from the animal it originated from. If we raised our own animals this would not be a discussion. But as it is today we trust that the slaughter will be done a certain way in a 1st world society. Animals need to have their rights fought for because they can’t speak for themselves and people take advantage of them for profit. And by the way, when I made the decision to become a vegetarian I loved meat. And I love my food still…cut my risk of cancers too while i’m at it.

Sickemrex says:

07:19pm | 08/06/11

I respect the animal that has died and ended up on my plate.  I buy free range meat when I can afford it.  I have killed, butchered and cooked my own meat before and am prepared to do it again come the revolution.  (Disclaimer, that’s just a joke, I don’t think there will really be a revolution whereby I will need to hunt and gather my own food.  I am not a revolutionary and I don’t know any revolutionaries.)  I don’t eat much meat but when I do, I like it.  I am fully cognisant of where it came from.  I prefer it is done as humanely as possible but as others have mentioned, I don’t think the lion gives much of a rat’s arse about the method of death delivery to the zebra, and we are all just animals really.

Your name:Adriana says:

03:51pm | 08/06/11

Just kill off another export will do fine thank you.

averill says:

07:46pm | 08/06/11

We can tell them what we think - but we cannot make them act on it. If they are left without meat for the Ramadan festival, then I think they may see the problem that we have with their methods. We can still export frozen meat so the industry should not be affected in the long run. But surely nobody can condone that kind of treatment - in this country or any other. They must be made to at least use stun guns. The religion in question has no rules about stun guns. The koran just says the animal must be alive; the problem is the Indonesians are too mean to pay for the
extra cost to stun the animal.

Que says:

04:16pm | 08/06/11

Hug?

Maree says:

09:53pm | 08/06/11

Agree: Some how ‘getup’ will politicise this so that the outcome will be “greenalp party” = good, Coalition = bad. I wonder how many people who do not know what ‘getup’ stand for, have signed up to receive their propaganda ?

Tanya says:

05:09pm | 08/06/11

Hi Nick. I found your comment funny but sadly it’s not as simple as that. If we were following the dietary patterns of old we would not be having this conversation. It’s the industrialisation of our food that has caused us to be divorced from our food’s origins. We no longer hunt it ourselves or manage the land ourselves so that now, the world’s food supply is unsafe and animals are mistreated. What a terrible world that is. This is about re-awakening respect for the origins and treatment of animals, not turning a blind eye to the way our modern businesses operate simply because it’s easier to.

hawker says:

06:41pm | 08/06/11

Tanya,

Re-awakening? When in human history was there a concern for animal welfare? Only now, and only in the west. Some in the developed world would see this as an indulgence they have no time for. Its an indulgence, that being in the west, I personally subscibe to (ie the humane treatment of animals).  But let’s not kid ourselves that once upon a time animals were treated better, and that our forebears had any more concern for them than those Indonesians

Tanya says:

07:15pm | 08/06/11

hawker - re-awakening our respect means to have the same gratitude for our food and where it came from as our ancestors. That respect came from having to hunt it and later, raise it themselves. Concepts of animal welfare may have differed to today - mainly due to a thing called education - but one thing is for sure - mass production was unavailable like the system it is today and that means en-mass suffering. The more educated scholars of our race were often advocates for animals.

Tanya says:

05:41pm | 08/06/11

The idea that ‘the people’ would actually engage in politics to affect change…what? Incredible…it’s almost like a democracy! Never happened before in my lifetime so I’m still getting used to it.

Cloud Strife says:

05:57pm | 08/06/11

Hi Jordan

It’s actually a huge privlege to be a vegan. It’s very expensive, and unworkable for some people.

For instance, when my iron levels dip, the best way for me to get back up to speed is to eat red meat. I can’t take iron supplements, because I am actually allergic to them. I can eat iron rich veggies, sure, and if I am at home, that’s what I do. But at work, I need to bring my iron levels up quickly so I don’t crash on the desk.

Sharon says:

07:13pm | 08/06/11

Agree Jordan ...

To Cloud Strife - sounds like you need to broaden your vegan horizons and menu. I’ve been vegan for 10 years, (as has my husband) vego for 6 years prior. Never had iron or any other deficiencies, am a regular blood donor, and I only take a multi-vitamin once every few weeks!  I’ve given birth to two vivaciously healthy babies following wonderful vegan pregnancies with no hint of iron deficiency .... because I did my research and ate a really nutritious and delicious diet that included plenty of legumes, green leafy vegetables, tempeh, tofu and variety of other veg and fruit.  My two boys are now 9 and 8, have always had fantastic health, are really intelligent, highly energetic, and rarely suffer the nasty gastro and horrid lingering colds that seem to frequent other children. For my own peace of mind I recently had their blood tested for all the usuals, including B12 ..... all totally in the normal range as I expected.  There are many myths out there about vegetarianism and veganism that my family and others I know have certainly exploded.  Best wishes to you!

Sharon says:

08:24pm | 08/06/11

Judging from Cloud Strife’s other comments on this article, I smell a meat-industry propaganda plant (pun intended) :o)

Lily says:

07:27am | 09/06/11

When I think Vegan and New Zealand I always remember the story of the kid who died because his parents tried to put him on a vegan diet from birth. Link here has more information on that and other similar cases http://naturalhygienesociety.org/diet-veganbaby.html

That’s right… a human died from a vegan diet because it did not provide the necessities of life.  Adults can exist (poorly) on a vegan diet with proper nutritional supplements but again it does not truly provide all we humans need to live.

Humans need to eat meat, it’s that simple.  We don’t need to eat a lot but we need to eat some simple to survive.  Organisations like Animals Australia’s aim is to ensure that ALL human consumption of animals ceases.  They want to turns us all in herbivores, but the only reason a diet without meat is even possible is because human technology allows for the production of vitamins and nutrients that we can take in pill form to make up for what we are missing when we drop meat from our diet.

Sharon says:

08:38am | 09/06/11

LILY: Your claims are a lie. The link to the article you gave refers to the parents of that baby having it on a fruitarian diet…. quote: “Nutritionists say a fruitarian, or fruit-only diet, is completely ill-advised for such a small child.”

Please educate yourself properly, read my earlier post below and stop peddling lies and myths. Even our Government health recommendations and the meat industry stopped long ago being able to say that meat was essential for good health ... because it is not.

Information on nutritious and delicious vegan meals is now plentiful on the web, and through bookstores. Try bringing yourself into the 21st century and learn how easy it is to do less harm - to the environment, human health and the animals we share this planet with.

Lily says:

06:49pm | 09/06/11

@Sharon,
Perhaps you should actually read the entire page before reacting after you read a couple of lines.  The child in NZ died from complications arising from a severe vitamin B12 deficiency.  The cause of this was the fact that the breast milk of his vegan mother did not contain that vitamin.  His death was a direct result of the diet and beliefs of his parents.  From that is pretty easy to determine that human beings must eat meat to live because we need certain vitamins and minerals to survive that plants do not provide.

The only thing that makes a diet without meat viable is that we as a species are advanced enough to produce artificial dietary supplements that supply the necessary vitamins and minerals that we would normally get from meat. In other words you have to pop pills to keep yourself as healthy as someone who eats one or two meals of meat a week.

Sarah says:

01:01am | 09/06/11

Um, probably when we were given thumbs.
Seriously, do people reaize the only reason the animals are alive in the first place is because they were bred to eventually be slaughtered?

Michael says:

09:04am | 09/06/11

When all the animals are protected from my dinner plate i will eat vegetarians, doesn’t bother me as we taste like pork, and the crackling is just as good.

Vegetarian of seventy two years says:

06:59pm | 08/06/11

Totally agree Sharon- apart from the inhumanity and cruelty to the animals , what about all the grain and purposely grown feed that they have?  It is wasteful to feed up animals on the grain and other food that could be used to feed more humans per acre. Humans do NOT NEED MEAT. They make sure that they eat good food that gives them all the nutrients they need. Vegetarian is a much more healthy and cruelty free way of life.

Que says:

09:33pm | 08/06/11

Umm, what nonsense. The public are reacting to a completely unacceptable form of slaughter, not slaughter itself. The public is very happy with meat consumption.

Stop trying to distort the facts.

Piana says:

08:53am | 11/06/11

Actually Que, meat sales are down 20 fricking percent. Far from being nonsense I’d say quite a few people are somewhat less happy than you seem to think.

History in fact tells us that our circle of moral inclusion is expanding. And that it is also currently picking up speed. Knowing this, I confidently predict that your animal cousins will be off the human menu sooner than you can imagine. The willing oppressors among you will kick and scream and fight it all the way (look at yourselves! pathetic), but it will happen. Oh yes.

Katie says:

03:27pm | 09/06/11

Right, and about 70 years ago you would have been the one says “black people are raised to be white man’s slave” - as Alice Walker said “The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for whites or women for men.”

Of course this issue always brings up the antichoice debate. If we’re exploiting animals we might as well take away women’s reproductive freedom, right? By the way, these embryos aren’t always sentient at the time of abortion. And even if they are, you know that banning abortion doesn’t stop abortion, it only leads to unsafe abortions that kill women.

Katie says:

03:22pm | 09/06/11

How about not shooting them at all? If it was your life people were quibbling over, I’m sure you’d rather be saved rather than killed ‘more nicely’.

Katie says:

03:21pm | 09/06/11

Dear John

In answer to your question - we stop breeding these domesticated animals and in the meantime take care of those we have brought into existence like a sanctuary (look up Edgar’s Mission for an example).

It is NOT personal philosophy when you’re personal ‘philosophy’ involves the unnecessary suffering, rape and death of sentient beings. Is it my ‘personal philosophy’ if I decided to torture, rape and kill children? I think you would say no.

Hunting is still causing unnecessary suffering and death to a sentient being. Unless you are living in tribe off the land and NOT living in Western society, you have no excuse for continuing to use animals for food, clothing, entertainment, science or as a pet.

John says:

05:12pm | 09/06/11

Oh, so Western society is more civilised, more advanced and “better”.  You are sliding into the racist there Katie.  A tribe that lives off the land?  That is about as insulting as “the noble savage”.  It also bears absolutely no scrutiny whatsoever and doesnt actually make me angry, just profoundly sorry that someone who is literate and probably educated is so ignorant.  Tell you something Katie, there is not one society on the planet where hunting has been extinguished.  It happens everywhere - notwithstanding the social engineering and so forth, supermarkets and all the other trappings of ‘civilisation’ there are those who prefer to grow, catch and kill their own.  Unbroken tradition over thousands of years.  And leave off the silly arguing tactics exposed by Thouless - your counter example is stupid.  And for what it is worth, a one shot kill of a deer is not rape, murder or torture.  The animal is dead quicker than a cow in an abbatoir, and was not held in captivity in vile conditions before hand.  Nor was it sexually interfered with in any way - nice conflation, but a really amateurish way to score a point.  You missed by a mile too and do little credit to yourself and those who think like you by making such silly statements. As for not keeping animals as pets, does your VW Beetle have a statement on it saying “Goldfish are Poltiical Prisoners”.  And let us leave aside that for many in even our society a pet is the closest thing they have for companionship to keep the pangs of lonliness at bay.  Sorry Katie, are you actually an empathetic person - or a sociopath?

Animal sanctuaries.  A lovely idea - completely impractical, and how do you pay, feed and clothe the millions of people who rely on livestock industry around the world.  Got a solution for that.  And how much extra land will you now need to grow all the protein to feed the world.  What are the alternatives to shoe leather that will not involve huge investment in alternatives (with attendant pollution).  I could go on but as you have such a toddler-like view of the world it is probably pointless.

And yes, it is your personal philosophy not to eat meat, or if you do, to separate yourself from the moral decision on who does your killing.  And that is my philosophical choice - but returning to the tribe living off the land fantasy - are you saying that they lack the moral wherewithal to make those decisions, perhaps turn their back on primitivism?  It must have taken years of therapy for you to arrive at your world view.  Now excuse me, I have to get home to pack for my forthcoming hunting trip.  I’ll try hard to feel remorse and stuff Katie, when the trigger is pulled - but more likely all I will feel is recoil.  Sorry.  But I was taught to live off the land, and that is how I will live my life.  In your world I have no excuse.  In my world, I don’t actually need an excuse.  Because I am not doing anything wrong.  Nor will my kelpie think I am doing anything wrong when I give her the offcuts.

John says:

05:15pm | 09/06/11

Venus Fly Trap?  I feel sorry for the flies, no, honestly.  What an awful, slow and disgusting way to die.  All venus fly traps should be made illegal.

Sharon says:

08:56pm | 09/06/11

This message is about reducing human-inflicted cruelty and suffering to millions of individual sentient creatures. You clearly are unable to provide any meaningful argument to against this campaign that is supported by the significant majority.

The great news (that you seem to find very irritating) is that the significant majority of Australians are not going to stand by and let our Government support this barbaric trade any longer.

In a civilised society, this is how we should progress.

Lisa H. says:

09:02pm | 09/06/11

Why? Because in your head all vegetarians are lefties?

John says:

09:36am | 10/06/11

OK - but why the focus on sentient beings.  Why is the line drawn there?  Why not trees?  Species have adapted to know when they are under attack from parasites etc.

As for the pro-choice thing, actually, I am of that view, but not based on some ideological standpoint, largely cold pragmatism.  Like it or not there are going to be a multitude of reasons why a termination is chosen - and not an easy choice.  It is therefore in the public interest that it be legal and available in a safe medical environment.  I have provided plenty of meaningful comment - but have largely been dismissed, Sharon, by your fellow traveller Katie, as a rapist.  Is that meaningful?  Does it add to the debate? 

My point in asking those questions is to probe the apparent moral relativism of your position.  And all I have been met with is diversion and any number of the dishonest arguing points exposed, as I pointed out, by Thouless.

HAd you absobed my other posts you might have seen a condemnation of the treatment of those animals, and indeed all animals suffering in the intensive agro-industry.  And I have asked for what the solutions are - and to date all I have received is a fuzzy reference to setting up animal sanctuaries, but no real answer to the issues of what will happen not only to a large amount of animals, but to a large amount of people, and how much more habitat destruction would be required to feed a world of vegans?  Is genetic modification permissible to increase yield?  How about plant and insect and animal pest control to help safeguard supply.  Water supply is a huge issue, considering where most food in Australia is produced and abstraction from the MD Basin.

I might also add that in the pro-vegan arguments presented on this blog there is largely a preaching to the converted.  And those not with you are against you, and are to be objectified, stereotyped and insulted.  Is that any way to gain adherants to your cause, or is your cause more about formenting division and being parasitical rather than providing genuine reasoned argument and well thought out solutions?  For the record:

Export ban - tick
Battery hen ban - tick
Forced pig breeding - tick
ban on any form of intensive animal farming - tick

No argument from me - and you know something, you wont get much argument from my circle of pals, all of whom hunt and fish.  And you know something else - you will never, ever stop people from choosing to eat meat etc as a source of protein.  Get used to it.  Preach all you like.  Insult, objectify and stereotype until the cows come home and are tucked up in bed with a hot water bottle.  Throw fake blood at people wearing fur and have models walk naked down George Street.  You won’t stop it.  Although you might have a bit more success in reducing cruelty by appealing to reason rather than emotion, and coming up with workable solutions that don’t involve visting instant bankruptcy on people who are not as fortunate as you to be a well educated urban activist - OK?

Sharon says:

11:14pm | 09/06/11

Well said Tim.

These organisations have had the audacity to think that they could continue tobrush away the growing public concern about this inherently cruel trade that they and the animal producers have profited from for decades.

Well finally, thanks to the amazing persistence, courage and professionalism of Lyn White and Animals Australia, and the RSPCA, the voices of the significant majority of decent compassionate Australians are shouting out louder than ever for the millions of voiceless animals.

Thank you to Julia Gillard for finally heeding the calls, and to The Greens, Andrew Wilkie, Nick Xenophon and all the Labor MPs who have shown they have the moral guts to do the right thing.

This is an amazing bit step forward. Let’s now make sure our Government doesn’t take two steps back - ban this miserable trade.

Brad says:

03:00pm | 11/06/11

Yes because making inanimate objects is the same thing as changing our biology… twit.

Alex says:

06:51pm | 11/06/11

Changing our biology? That’s a serious misunderstanding of both science and the point I was making Brad.

I was highlighting the fact that an important element of our species is the fact that we aren’t totally bound to natural and instinctual behavior. Furthermore it takes thousands upon thousands of years to change your biological makeup.

Resorting to ad hominem only supports my argument as it clearly indicates you have no substantial response.

Brad says:

03:19am | 12/06/11

“Changing our biology? That’s a serious misunderstanding of both science and the point I was making Brad. “

No and No again. To claim that we should move away from being omnivores to spare the lives of animals is not missing the point nor is it “misunderstanding science”... what kind of fallacious nonsensical point are you trying to make here?

Humans are omnivores, that in itself DOES justifies the eating of animals, the number there of is only proportional to the massive number of humans inhabiting the planet. While it is perfectly accepted that some people can sustain a vegetarian lifestyle, there are significant studies showing that unless their meals are closely controlled to obtain the correct amounts of vitamin D, B12, Iron, Calcium and Zinc while also artificially substituting omega-3 fatty acids and some amino acids, that it can be a detrimental lifestyle choice.

As the majority of society would currently register as “unhealthy” with respect to their eating habits, if vegetarianism went global, there would still be a raft of eating related issues albeit different to what we have now. I do agree that western society indulges in far too much meat, but they eat it for legitimate reasons. Firstly, moderate meat intake as part of a varied diet is a very simple and easy way for people to live, without the need to micromanage the types of foods they eat to try and sustain essential vitamins, minerals and fats. Secondly, we have descended from a very long line of omnivores, it is who we are, deep seeded in our biological heritage

Your comparison above was a complete non-seqitor, you are comparing a biological state with the ability to create things which has no correlation at all. 

Also, twit… means foolish, as an observation of the original comparison you made, which was poorly thought out. try and keep up now

Moral Schyzophrenia says:

10:01am | 12/06/11

Any reader would clearly see that you’ve failed to acknowledge my points and instead supplanted them with your own nonsensical interpretation.

“Humans are omnivores, that in itself DOES justifies the eating of animals, the number there of is only proportional to the massive number of humans inhabiting the planet.”

The suggestion that mere facts simply justify actions and our morality is irrelevant is a frightening one. “No and No again” Brad. All of us morally disagree with unnecessary torture and death to animals. You probably have a pet right? You wouldn’t hurt that, but why are cows, pigs, chickens etc any different.

Did you read what I said? or are you being selective in your response? You’ve failed to acknowledge the fact it takes thousands of years to change our biological make up. Reiterating my points and your response to them previously is a strange way of discussing something.

Moral Schyzophrenia says:

04:07pm | 12/06/11

By the way, you spelt ‘non-sequitur’ wrong. Try and keep up now

Brad says:

08:47pm | 12/06/11

Wow, spelling police? seriously? pfft… grasping at straws?

“Any reader would clearly see that you’ve failed to acknowledge my points and instead supplanted them with your own nonsensical interpretation.”

Care to explain? I have re-read it and see no validation for your claim here.

“The suggestion that mere facts simply justify actions and our morality is irrelevant is a frightening one.”

Umm? How is my statement here justifying torture? Animals can be raised and killed without barbaric acts… the statement you quoted was a mere fact that humans eat animals and that the stated “tens of billions” is completely irrelevant when viewed in context of the number of humans who eat meat.

“All of us morally disagree with unnecessary torture and death to animals.”

Well thats a sweeping generalisation that is clearly fallacious, the people doing this to the cows have no issue with it, ergo this statement is wrong.

Furthermore the end of this sentence is completely false for almost all western nations, we have very few problems with the death of animals. The torture is only viewed such by a portion of nations who recognise these animals as sentient and semi-cognisant beings. People who view them entirely as dumb wandering animals, do not pay heed to their feelings or awareness, as such they hold no regard for morality in their treatment of said animals.

“You probably have a pet right? You wouldn’t hurt that, but why are cows, pigs, chickens etc any different. ”

Would I kill a pig, chicken or sheep, yes, I have killed these three animals before. I did this with as painlessly as I was able, it definitely was not a pleasant experience, but when your grandparents own a farm its something I was exposed to. Do I think there is anything wrong with killing these animals? No, we killed them for a reason.

“Did you read what I said? or are you being selective in your response? You’ve failed to acknowledge the fact it takes thousands of years to change our biological make up. “

Did you read what I said? Clearly not… You are stating the exact same thing I am here. We cannot change our biology as simply as we build something. We are omnivores, born of a long linage as such. It is who we are.

Jaydee says:

02:28pm | 18/06/11

With regard to all the comments made, cruelty to man and beast this has always been the culture of this country, not forgetting past and recent atrocities to Aus journalists, tourists( In cold blood)  the Timorese,Papuans.The instigator of the Bali bombing gets 15 years and the stupid young drug mules get life. or death sentences. Is there any difference ?.Having said that ,the country is still 3rd world,barbaric and primitive, and it should have been the total responsibility of the live trade authorities and the govt department in charge not to get into deals at face value, because the other side do not have any values, respect or understanding how to conduct themselves. not ever being on the same wave length as they lack a conscience.This is out of THEIR choice (not religious) it is not Koran practice, confirmed by good muslims here,these are the practice of uneducated clerics in villages, because of the ingrained attitudes.  These people, educated or not,they are all a desensitised to cruelty, and those initiating this trade should have been aware from previous episodes of which they were made aware of and at that time atleast had proper controls and agreements put into place right up to the slaughter houses or no deal. Instead itwas ignored -,the lame excuse now is they could not intrude into abbattoirs or they did not know and now are horrified!!! Is it a joke , when the business is being subsidized from the Aus end ?.How did the animal rights people get in ?? Unfortunately at the cost of cruelty to these dumb beasts it is the AUSTRALIANS RESPONSIBLE FOR CLOSING THEIR EYES TO THIS BARBARIC TRADE who have to take the blame and not try to cop out. IF the matter is properly investigated and proper controls are put into place and if these barbarians are blacklisted and controlled from accessing these animals from accredited abbattoirs the trade may be better than ever, that is if our own EMINENT Australians,some of whom have commented it is none of our concern how and what is done to these mouthless beasts,( .holy halal food for the hypocrites & primitives) across the sea, get it right. because the $ dazzles them blind. Instead they are champing at the bits and listening to the whinging of the producers of this trade, who have made profits since the past decade or more subsidised by the tax payers more or less and,forgetting that their countrymen in the rest of the country have also had hard times, when mass retrenchments have occurred,some in the latter stages of their working lives still paying off for their homes, they got no cheap beef from these farmers and graziers, Sympathy goes around not only for the select few at the top and west end of this country. Others have had to tighten their belts and make do somehow to support their families as well.Measures have to be taken or ban live trade the world over and create jobs at less profit for tthemselves.Be Australian and be proud ot it. As is is often said it is not the Australian way so stop the whinging.