Free Range Vegetarian

[Astrocat]

(^-^) Hi there, Calum.

For continuity, these topics all come before this one –

Free range vegetarianism

Label My Leather

How fair is fairly traded food ?

8 reasons to buy British food

Year of Food & Farming

I take your point, although I think that we are really just saying the same thing!

Well, what he is saying is that we would be much worse off if everyone who is campaigning for, and furthering wind , solar, aqua , human-force and other renewable energy sources, were to all have decided that it was not worth campaigning for those things while nuclear power is around……

Isn’t it fortunate then, that they all decided to campaign for causes in a multi-pupose manner, rather than being so singularly focussed ?

His point, and the one which I have been making while you have been avidly disagreeing and eventually just avoiding talking about it, is that this is also the case when it comes to labelling and food-related issues.

It is slightly outside the realm of a labelling campaign to campaign against battery farmed eggs, but that doesn't mean that we can't campaign for mandatory labelling for all battery farmed eggs.

Yes, both of us were talking about labelling…. Not active campaigning against any type of factory-made eggs – free range , battery, or whatever.

The difference as far as I can see it, is that Calum and I seem to agree that this is okay, while you think it is ok in your own case but take exception in my case, and appear not to want to explain why.

It is, as you say, just a step in the right direction. However, the driving force for me is that it is a potentially achievable step.

What evidence is there that what you are trying to achieve is any more worthwhile and achievable than what I am advocating and campaigning ?

I really would like the campaign to remain a consumer information campaign, rather than an animal welfare campaign, because it includes people who have a much wider range of food issues (religion and allergies)…

… and in doing so you choose to exclude and alienate somebody who is an active comsumerism campaigner for all purposes....

I would have thought that a consumerism campaign would want to include active consumerist campaigners who campaign for all kinds of reasons, rather than being exclusionist about it.

… ) and also because it is far easier for companies to ignore and dismiss animal welfare groups.

Your own campaign is an animal welfarist campaign – you said so, yourself…. And I agreed with you, and still do. That being the case, what point are you making here, as you seem to have been rather self-contradictory, and it’s confusing to me.

She had many good and valid points, but I simply couldn't keep up with her constant demands for questions to be answered! 

For the last week and a half I have been clamouring so much for answers that I’ve been entirely silent on the forum, discreetly checking every now and then to see whether any answers have been given.
(^-~)

I did try to suggest an alternative route for her to perhaps offer something more constructive by providing a vegan labelling guide for restaurants, but she declined.

I had already just finished doing other ‘more constructive things’ , but you seem to expect that I should just continually do those things, and not ask questions or try to find out more about the integrity, motives, purpose and worth of what I am contributing towards.

Having already done several things which you had requested – reviewing a pub meal, posting a great recipe for vegan chocolate cake, and posting about why I regard organic food as being superior to non-organic food.

This being the case, I figured it was about time that I stopped doing things unquestioningly…. No ?

Obviously I don't want to upset anyone, and regret that she felt unable to stay, but a campaign like this is always going to be unacceptable to some people if it doesn't specifically follow their own ethical code.

I find that a bit patronising, to be honest with you.

If you are able to validate the integrity , motives , purpose and worth of this campaign then I would be willing to return, but you continue not to do so…this is why I am not on board.

It is true though, that as part of that I do feel somewhat deterred by your choice to avidly campaign in favour of industrial animal exploitation and abuse being viewed as acceptable and ethically and morally meritable, just so long as it isn’t battery farmed animals involved… especially considering this “I don’t want to talk about it, I would rather give out leaflets locally instead’ approach.

Anyway, either way it’s cool you inspired me, anyway.

I’ve been meaning for ages to make a proper website for VegansRock, and I’ve been trying to find different stuff to put on it – I have various essays I’ve written, useful topics, stuff to link to , etc… but I can also stick up an activism and campaign section, to include all of the different stuff that I would advocate, and all kinds of campaigns that I take part in or would like to kick off…. It could be awesome
I probably would have taken longer to think of it if you hadn’t spoken to me about starting my own campaign.

[Anthony Butcher]

Originally Posted by Astrocat

Isn’t it fortunate then, that they all decided to campaign for causes in a multi-pupose manner, rather than being so singularly focussed ?

I am not against campaigns against improving animal welfare standards at all, and would encourage these as much as possible. All I am saying is that they are outside the realms of this campaign.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

The difference as far as I can see it, is that Calum and I seem to agree that this is okay, while you think it is ok in your own case but take exception in my case, and appear not to want to explain why.

I really don't know what you are asking.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

What evidence is there that what you are trying to achieve is any more worthwhile and achievable than what I am advocating and campaigning ?

I didn't say that it was, all I am saying is that to maintain a cohesive food labelling campaign it can't become bogged down following a single ethical code, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

… and in doing so you choose to exclude and alienate somebody who is an active comsumerism campaigner for all purposes....

I don't think that it should alienate you at all. If you support the principles of the campaign, then there shouldn't be a problem.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

I would have thought that a consumerism campaign would want to include active consumerist campaigners who campaign for all kinds of reasons, rather than being exclusionist about it.

Absolutely. However, I feel as if you are trying to turn it into a vegan campaigning group. If I have interpreted wrongly, I am sorry.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

Your own campaign is an animal welfarist campaign – you said so, yourself….

If I said that I was misleading. The campaign is a consumer information campaign. It represents the needs of animal welfarists, among other groups. That is not the same as campaigning directly on animal welfare issues. The confusion may have arisen because some of these discussions are just using my personal opinions as a vegetarian.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

Having already done several things which you had requested – reviewing a pub meal, posting a great recipe for vegan chocolate cake, and posting about why I regard organic food as being superior to non-organic food.

That is brilliant stuff - exactly the kind of thing we are looking for. I even spent half an hour submitting your chocolate cake recipe to 40 odd social bookmarking sites to make it famous

Originally Posted by Astrocat

If you are able to validate the integrity , motives , purpose and worth of this campaign then I would be willing to return, but you continue not to do so…this is why I am not on board.

The problem is that you have asked so many questions. If you could list them succinctly in a new thread, I will attempt to answer them.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

It is true though, that as part of that I do feel somewhat deterred by your choice to avidly campaign in favour of industrial animal exploitation and abuse being viewed as acceptable and ethically and morally meritable, just so long as it isn’t battery farmed animals involved…

Well that is exactly my point that ethical issues are going to put some people off. It wasn't meant to be patronising.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the problem appears to be that you object to the campaign asking for products to be labelled as 'free-range' because you don't feel that this is an acceptable guarantee of improved animal welfare conditions.

However, there is no alternative standard/label that is so widely known. 'Free range' is a label that consumers and businesses can latch on to - it is a solid target. How much of an improvement that represents is debatable.

Please remember that we are talking about labelling here, not campaigning on the issue itself. If you personally aren't interested in something being labelled free range (and as a vegan it has no use to you), then you can just ignore it. However, there are millions of people in Britain who would be a lot happier to see a 'free-range eggs' label used on their food than not.

The campaign will also of course promote the use of other labelling standards, such as the Red Tractor from the Soil Association. If there is a particular standard that you favour that you believe promises good animal welfare standards then we can help to advertise that too.

I think that we could do with a full break down of all the different standards available in terms of farming. That would be very useful, if anyone reading this has a specialist knowledge fo the subject.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

Anyway, either way it’s cool you inspired me, anyway.

Glad I could help!

[Calum]

well as i see it, the main sticking point between yourself and astro isn't the issue of turning a campaign about correct labelling into a campaign for animal welfare, it is instead the contentious issue of whether it's worth pushing for food to be labelled free range.

Here are my thoughts. From what i see and hear, it is apparent to me that the term "free range" means very little. the rules associated with the term are not too much more stringent than those associated with less well lauded (but widely accepted) forms of meat production, what we might generously call farming. In short, free range meat is made from the bodies of animals who are kept in similar conditions to animals kept for non-free range meat production.

That being the case, which of the following two options is more sensible?

1) a campaign to label food as free range or not, using the existing definitions, given that these definitions are misleading (see above), and given that all or most free range produce already carries this label (because why would you follow the rules for free range without being able to cash in on the feelgood factor of putting "free range" on your label and twenty (or whatever) pence on your prices)

2) a campaign for a proper and meaningful definition of the term "free range".

In my opinion, it is a waste of energy to campaign for a definition between two meaningless standards, when what is actually required is a proper standard which food can then be labelled with. The simplest way to do this would be for the EU to legislate more stringently about what qualifies as "free range".

As i am sure you are aware the words "free range" usually mean (in people's imaginations) happy fluffy animals living their natural lifespans in acres of sunny woodlands (or something) until the day they die of old age and their carcasses are gently removed by the farmer while their friends aren't looking. This is, of course, because it isn't seemly for normal humans to enjoy thinking about the truth behind the food they pay for and consume daily. Ironically this isn't because humans are naturally horrified by the brutality of meat production, but because in modern times humans are so removed from meat production that it seems gruesome to them, this coupled with the fact that meat is produced much more gruesomely in recent decades than ever before.

However, there are millions of people in Britain who would be a lot happier to see a 'free-range eggs' label used on their food than not.

your quote here illustrates my point very well. You say people would be happier to see this label on their food. That may be true, but is it more important for people to be happy that they can see a meaningless symbol, or that the symbol actually represents something true, that those people think they want to believe in? People choose "free range" products because they like to think they are ethically guided. Pushing for more food to be labelled this way, without properly defining the standard, does not help people choose their products ethically, it only misleads them further.

The point i am making here is that the people who want their animals to have such a nice happy life before they consume them will need the term "free range" to actually mean what they imagine it to, or else their diet is living a lie.

The sad fact is that i suspect these people would rather continue living a lie than pay the price (in money) that true free range meat production would cost. And of course it would be outrageous to imagine them stopping eating meat altogether!

By the way, re: stopping them serving meat on planes etc, i really don't see why that's such an outrageous idea. In many ways it makes sense, bean curd is cheaper than meat, it keeps longer, in less stringent conditions, it is more flexible in terms of texture and taste. It seems imbecilic for airlines to continually trot out meat as the main airline meal, especially since the meat eaters usually make every attempt to eat the vegetarian meals in preference, what does that tell you? I might also mention that the airlines i have flown with that allow you to book your meal in advance have, in roughly one third of cases, been unable to provide me with a vegetarian meal, while the airlines i have flown with who do not allow you to book your food in advance have *never* *ever* (except on one occasion with Lufthansa) been able to provide the vegetarian "option" that was on their menu as it had "run out" (presumably due either to an unexpected party of vegetarians or more likely a large number of meat eaters choosing, wisely, not to eat meat). This problem could become a thing of the past if they just replace their homogenised meat products with homogenised vegetable products, and you wouldn't get any of those niggling doubts about BSE, avian flu and salmonella either. It is simply stupidity and nothing else that stops airlines and other fast food providers from switching. If not for trading standards they could do it without saying a word. Imagine if McDonalds suddenly came out and said "well, for six months all our burgers have been made out of bean curd". They probably have a good amount of non-meat content in them at the moment in fact!

[Astrocat]

Absolutely. However, I feel as if you are trying to turn it into a vegan campaigning group. If I have interpreted wrongly, I am sorry.

Do you feel this way because you are unable to defend your position, and find it uncomfortable to continue advocating your stance with me around because of this being the case ?

(^-~) It's your campaign after all, you run it however you choose of course, and I'm busy organising my spicing up of VegansRock right now, mainly.... thus no campaign hijacking is listed in my upcoming diary, yo' but... all the same, i would have hoped you could support your position to some extent if you choose to have it to begin with, and certainly if you opt to continue to have it.

That is brilliant stuff - exactly the kind of thing we are looking for. I even spent half an hour submitting your chocolate cake recipe to 40 odd social bookmarking sites to make it famous

(^-^) heh, great -
it's a genuine home-spun recipe , so if possible then please try to credit at least the lovely lady who did most of the work, if not me also .... she's called Ann Watts and isn;t vegan herself, but she;s great and she veganed up a recipe from a cookery book, then we both tweaked it a little from there - it's all good !

The problem is that you have asked so many questions. If you could list them succinctly in a new thread, I will attempt to answer them.

okay. cool.

If I said that I was misleading. The campaign is a consumer information campaign. It represents the needs of animal welfarists, among other groups. That is not the same as campaigning directly on animal welfare issues. The confusion may have arisen because some of these discussions are just using my personal opinions as a vegetarian.

By 'campaign' i was maybe being rather unclear there, By that I just meant one campaign, rather than campaign as a plural.

I was referring to just the part of your campaign which this topic is about - the free range vegetarianism thing, specifically, and the whole battery eggs labelling issue which you have as a running theme.

Well that is exactly my point that ethical issues are going to put some people off.

I am saying that I am deterred by the lack of ethics apparent in your advocacy structure..... so, surely it isn't exactly your point.... is it not ?

However, there are millions of people in Britain who would be a lot happier to see a 'free-range eggs' label used on their food than not.

No doubt.

Then, which would you say is better ?

Say, 5 million people reluctantly eating non free-range eggs.... and then maybe a few hundred thousand of them eventually stopping after a few years

Or 8 million people happily scoffing down free range eggs (because many more people would be doing it in the first place if they were all so happy about it) , then 2 million more joining their ecstatically free-range product - devouring masses ?

So many people already like to think that animals are very happy, who are segregated, kept in captivity, fed unnatural bland repetetive food, who have their babies snatched away soon after birth and usually killed horribly, who are kept in a continual state of egg laying or milk production (often unnaturally boosted using methods such as cunning light cycling etc, and in most cases a cocktail of chemicals) , before usually having their necks snapped , being hit with a hammer or occasionally shot (although that's pricier than the hammer fractionally, so...) or being boiled to death (sometimes after being stunned a bit) ... it's not a pretty business. (O.o)

So... people go around declaring 'this is great, this is ethical, wonderfull bravo, to be commended, yes it is very acceptable stuff, people should be thrilled about it all because it is free range' is... well.... it's not so good, you know ?

I mean, all of the above happens on 'happy smiley old McDonalds free range farms' .... honestly.... I have lived for over 1/4 of a century on a small island farming community with beef production as a very main industry.... I lived on the outskirts of a farm with manic farmers occupying two sheds right next door.... it's nasty stuff, man.... free range or not, farming for human 'benefit' is just not very nice, I reckon.

I am enthused about everything which Calum has said I entirely agree, once again, with it all.

Re: airline food..... have you seen airline eggs ?
Seriously.... documentaries reckon that even with first class they're using weird microwave-easy-ready dehydrated egg stuff which is freaky in that they have to be really careful not to overcook it, or else it goes a scary shade of green......
Dude,if i wasn;t trying my damnedest to eat vegan food on aeroplanes if possible anyway, I woudl be after seeing that kind of stuff reported about.... the staff were very casual about it all, they reckoned it was standard and stuff, alarming in it's obviosuly freaky ways.... but not exceptionally so, it seemed.

I reckon that if possible, maybe the fruit platter would be the one to go for... surely nobody else would ask for FRUIT..... right ? (^-~)

[Astrocat]

The problem is that you have asked so many questions. If you could list them succinctly in a new thread, I will attempt to answer them.

Having thought about it further, this seems like a rather unusual request for various reasons.

Firstly, it would involve effort and time - which would perhaps be used in a much more worthwhile manner if it were spent on my own campaigning endeavours, and so forth.

Secondly, I reckon that the questions are all asked in a pretty straight-forward manner, so it's a matter of condensing the context down to a couple of sentences of something mainly, which you;re asking for, from the look of it. If the entire context in which a question is asked has to be synopsised down to a bite-sized chunk, the question's merit is sometimes likely to be compromised a bit, i reckon....

Thirdly, if people check out a topic about free range vegetarianism, and wish to know the views of participants therein regarding free range vegetarianism, it seems reasonable of them to expect (and want) to see that sort of thing in the relevant topic, rather than being redirected off to some generalised topic about various different things.

Fourthly, the questions are all there already, and are online so can be answered slowly ... if I were answering various questions in assorted topics then it seems logical and constructive to take one topic at a time, look at one post at a time, and answer the questions in a nice, ongoing, chronological kind of manner.

Would you do that, please ?

[Anthony Butcher]

Well all of this seems to come down to whether 'free-range' is worth anything or not. You have both stated that it isn't, but I would very much like to see some concrete evidence for that. Convince me that free range farming is no better than battery farming.

If we are not going to use 'free range' as an 'approved' label for restaurants, then we would need something appropriate to replace it with - and that means a credible alternative farming standard that is widely recognised.

[Astrocat]

Well all of this seems to come down to whether 'free-range' is worth anything or not. You have both stated that it isn't, but I would very much like to see some concrete evidence for that.

I would very much like any evidence, concrete or otherwise, to support what you have been saying to the contrary, just as i would very much like a response to my numerous other questions.

I typed 'uk free range guidelines' into Google because I had intended to get a good compiled list of them, and this is one of the first things it came up with.

This article lists the guidelines along with appropriate comments.... so, I'll let Rachel Cummins do the talking here :
Free range poultry and eggs - DEFRA guidelines

So, do you know this already and truly think that's all ok ?

Or, did you not have this basic knowledge regarding what you are advocating , supporting, and criticising ?

Convince me that free range farming is no better than battery farming.

You seem to have no idea what sort of conditions the animals are kept in, whose body fluids you choose to consume.

I would say that if a person is going to decide to declare that conditions which animals are kept in are wonderful, morally great, ethical, and acceptable, etc.... then surely the very least one would expect, is that person knows what those conditions actually are.

Do you feel that anything which isn't at least as bad as factory farming is appropriate to commend, encourage and applaud ?

And if not, then why did you demand that I should have to 'convince you' that free range farming conditions are 'no better than' battery farm conditions ?

Surely, free range agriculture can be examined regardless of the conditions for battery farming.

It's hardly as if free-range eggs sold in supermarkets are even necessarily free range anyway....
500 million factory-farmed eggs sold in “organic” scam

If we are not going to use 'free range' as an 'approved' label for restaurants, then we would need something appropriate to replace it with - and that means a credible alternative farming standard that is widely recognised.

What do you mean by 'appropriate' ?

[Anthony Butcher]

Originally Posted by Astrocat

This article lists the guidelines along with appropriate comments.... so, I'll let Rachel Cummins do the talking here :
Free range poultry and eggs - DEFRA guidelines

So, do you know this already and truly think that's all ok ?

Having read through it, the free range guidelines look OK to me. Not ideal, but still substantially better than battery farmed birds. In all circumstances I would prefer something to be free range than battery farmed. I certainly don't see anything there that makes me think that it is horrific.

I would also point out that 'free range' is the standard that the Vegetarian Society states to be the minimum acceptable standard.
http://www.vegsoc.org/cordonvert/recipes/freerange.htm

The article is very useful because it lists several different and better free range standards:
'Traditional Free Range'
'Free Range - Total Freedom'
RSPCA’s Freedom Food label
Soil Association (Red Tractor?)

We should endeavour to include these as suggested labelling ideals for companies that use them.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

What do you mean by 'appropriate' ?

Labels are only useful as long as they mean something to people. I have never heard of "Total Freedom" before, so if businesses choose to use that label (appropriately of course!) then they will have to include a desciption of it... which isn't ideal.

[Astrocat]

Having read through it, the free range guidelines look OK to me.

If you were compelled to live in similar conditions with no means of escape, for your entire life.... then, would you find that to be okay or acceptable ?

If people were keeping puppies in their basement in similar conditions, sawing off their teeth and keeping them crammed in so that they could hardly move, surrounded by filth and squallor.... then, would you view that as okay and acceptable ?