and egg industry

Believe it or not "Bacon!" is an argument. It's just a really scary one. The argument is that if I enjoy something, it is moral. Which is utterly terrifying.

allowing animal abuse to happen is permitting dangerous and aggressive people to test out how much harm they can inflict on another creature and still get away with.

Do NOT argue with me that there is such thing as an exploitation-free chicken egg consumed by a human.

I have watched 47,000 two-year-old hens be gassed because they are no longer producing “quality” eggs. Tossed in a pile, shoveled with a tractor.

I have sat with a hen and her prolapsing uterus in my lap, an inch of her insides painfully protruding out of her after she passed far too many eggs.

I have seen backyard chicken “lovers” joke about accidentally getting a male chick and their companion dog having “fresh meat” for dinner. I have also seen them calling shelter after shelter in vain, searching for someone to provide a safe home for their illicit rooster companion.

I have known far fewer roosters than hens because they never made it out of the hatchery, gassed or suffocated or ground up alive upon birth because of their sex.

I have seen hens with half their beak attempt to eat and clean themselves.

I have watched a hen barely able to breathe, needing euthanasia because of egg industry selective and over-breeding.

And I have seen thousands of birds joyfully eat their own eggs fed back to them because they are theirs and they like them and they are nutritious for them.

Do you care about eating the eggs of this one particular species so much, regardless of how harmful they are to your health, that you try to justify supporting this exploitation?


Big Beef’s jig is up

Federal dietary committee recommends eating less red meat. Will science finally trump politics?

February 26, 2015

Michele Simon

You almost have to feel sorry for the beef industry. After enjoying decades of popularity as a staple of the all-American diet, the harsh realities behind unsustainable beef production and excessive consumption are finally coming to light.

The latest red meat scare comes from the U.S. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) a scientific body formed every five years to review the latest research available to tell the American public how to eat right. In the past, the committee’s work has been undermined by members with conflicts of interest with the meat, egg and dairy industries. But this year’s committee pulled no punches, even extending its reach to environmental considerations for the first time. The recommendations are not the final word on the matter. Later this year, the federal government will issue its formal Dietary Guidelines for Americans after reviewing the committee’s research and public comments.

The DGAC report (PDF), 571 pages long, is nicely summarized by New York University professor Marion Nestle, who calls the document “courageous,” in part for its strong stand in advising Americans to lower their meat consumption. Specifically, the committee found “moderate to strong evidence” that higher intake of red and processed meats was more harmful to health compared with lower intake.” The strongest and most consistent evidence was associated with eating fruits and vegetables.

But that’s not all.

The DGAC found for the first time that diets emphasizing plant-based foods over meat are better for the environment. Specifically, the committee noted that currently, “the average U.S. diet has a larger environmental impact in terms of increased greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use and energy use” compared with a “healthy vegetarian pattern,” which is “aligned with lower environmental impacts.”

The meat lobby is not pleased.

Calling the recommendations “flawed and nonsensical,” the North American Meat Institute came out swinging in the press, as did the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, which said, “It is misleading to conclude that a healthy dietary pattern should be lower in red meat.”

Why is this important? Who even pays attention to government dietary advice anyway? The meat, egg and dairy industries certainly think it’s important enough to have historically exerted their influence over the process. Here is their clever approach: Pull political strings to get the feds to advise Americans that animal foods are essential to health. Then point to the official Dietary Guidelines for Americans as the gold standard for alleged scientific proof of how to eat right. Never mind the manipulation that made it so.

In addition, the official dietary guidelines provide the nutritional basis for federal food assistance programs such as school meals, which represents a huge market for the food industry. In fact, one of the most important recommendations of the current DGAC is to align food assistance programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (previously called food stamps) with the dietary guidelines.

We should celebrate the committee’s noble efforts to bring nutrition science up to date with what health experts and advocates have known for decades: that shifting away from meat toward plant-based foods is best for people and the planet.

read more 

Chats from the Environmental Working Group’s Meat Eaters Guide 


Cruelty of the egg industry - a three and a half minute video worth showing to friends who are on the fence about going vegan.